Is using shaky camera in movie action scenes just a cheep gimmick?

[Lliam]

I wonder who was the rocket scientist who came up with that gimmick. Now it's standard and employed in every single action sequence.

It seems to me that the purpose is the simulate action when no action is taking place. The sound track is part of the simulation. We hear action but can't see anything.

So movie maker can save money on sets, special effects, choreography and creativity by jiggling a camera around in the dark with very rapid cuts. You can't see anything but you are supposed to somehow feel excitment. Oh yeah, how exciting. 🤮

It's just bad film making. It is a way of avoiding craftsmanship.

[abc3643]

The original term comes from "Cinéma vérité", a genre for documentary filmmaking.

"Shaky cam" (Roger Ebert called it "queasy cam") was used to make movies that seem more real like documentaries.

It's also fucking cheap as shit, but sometimes it's really the only technique available because getting a stabilized camera is impossible in some situations (although technology is advancing in this area).

What I hate about it is that it is an abused technique. Shaky cam is to filmmaking what autotune is to music: cheap shit.

I hate it for the most part. I really do and I will not watch things with it for the most part.
For instance, everybody raved about new "Battlestar Galactica". As a fan of the original in 1978, I decided to give it a shot when I got cable. Right away, the sudden zooms and other shaky cam techniques made me instantly turn it off. "It's shit", I thought, "I don't need to waste my time getting a headache watching this." Now, for all I know, the storylines were great and it may even have been an excellent series... but the camera work ruined it for me from the start. What really pissed me off about it is that the SHAKY CAM WAS COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY.

Really, David Lean's movies should be required viewing and studying in film school - especially in cinematography class.

Let's compare...

Battlestar Galactica
(You only need to see the first 10 seconds of this video to understand the unnecessary shit.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPeXFV94bsE

Now, the opening of "Doctor Zhivago", the 1964 epic directed by David Lean.
Yes, there is some bumpy camera work, but completely justifiable here. But, mostly, Lean uses the long shot to set mood and setting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jffzeGOM1Hk

Two more examples from "Lawrence of Arabia", Lean's 1962 epic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlUFxO0wxVQhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jj8nz59W6IQ

And "The Bridge on the River Kwai", Lean's 1957 epic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-fJd2ALiPM

No shaky cam; just excellent filmmaking for the viewer to soak in.

[Lliam]

Good observations.
Using your example of jogging, Our heads are solidly fixed to our bodies and act more like a "steady cam". It's not like holding a camera up and trying to film while you are jogging. Plus, as you said, our brains interpret and make sense of what we see. If our heads bobbled like the shaky cameras in modern action scenes, We'd be helpless.
That shit is nothing like reality. But it must fool the brains of some people into thinking that something exciting is going on or talentless film makers wouldn't use the technique so ubiquitously now days.

I won't say that the technique can't be used artfully at times. But, as you showed in Battle Star Galactica, it is sometimes almost gratuitous. And almost all action scenes these days are a waste of time. Nothing to see.

Are you a film student? You see to know something of the history. I like the examples you shared. Those were some well made films.

[abc3643]

I went to the School of Siskel & Ebert.
Seriously... when they were on PBS with "Sneak Previews" 40+ years ago, I'd watch it religiously. It made me think about movies more. Besides reviews, they'd sometimes do special episodes. For instance, one in particular sticksout - it was about how home videos do "pan and scan"... This was a long time ago when TVs were 4:3 but movies were usually 16:9. So, the movie studios, when translating their movies to VHS, had a choice for people to watch movies at home on a 4:3 TV. Either they show the whole movie with black bars on top and bottom or they pan and scan. Most people didn't have the maturity to deal with the black bars. This is why most VHS videos used pan and scan but, if you got the widescreen version (IF you were lucky enough to have it offered), you got the bars. Now you know why TVs are generally 16:9 now; it eliminated that problem - no need to pan and scan and you can see the whole movie as it was in theaters. Anyway, what Siskel and Ebert did was illustrate what is lost in pan and scan and how it adversely affects the movie. They illustrated this particularly well with the scene from The Graduate in which Mrs. Robinson is trying to seduce Benjamin.

That episode of "Sneak Previews" had a major impact on me and made me think about my relationship with movies... To think about how to do a shot, to think about sound editing and cues. All sorts of stuff. I have to admit that something instinctive in me came out and I take decent pictures with my phone now because I know how to set up the shot... "composition", I think that call it.

I think one reason why The Godfather: Part III was a relative failure compared to its predecessors was the inappropriate music and sound clues. The original and Part II were good in these areas, but not III.

Anyway, no, I am not a film student or even really a film buff, but I learned to and do appreciate the art and science of filmmaking.

[abc3643]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X63msr--dYc

[abc3643]

The original from 1988.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7vbh-mV6kI

[abc3643]

By the way, for movies up for the Oscar for Best Cinematography, David Lean is the director with most of those films up for that award.

[NamerOfStars]

Back in the day, there was a game called Descent. It was touted as having "six degrees of freedom", because in it there was neither up nor down, and no pull of gravity. You'd move at high speeds, and frequently rotate through all three axises, and many people had motion sickness while playing it- but that was never a problem for me. It still isn't.

But... the day finally came when I persuaded to watch the new (at the time) Battlestar Galactica series. I'd seen the original, and liked it, but was a bit concerned about (among other things) how "loveable but irascible rogue" was going to translate from 70's Mormonism to 00's Hollywood. Did it make the transition? I don't know. I started watching the introductory movie, and the shaky-cam was so damned bad that I threw up. Literally. I'd already had to pause it two or three times, but at about the ninety-minute mark, I lost control and barfed. Luckily, I'd predicted this might happen, and had a trash can nearby, but... what the hell? The worst part is that IT WASN'T EVEN AN ACTION SCENE! It was two characters sitting and talking together- kind of intense in an "emotionally charged conversation" way, but nothing flashy or fast-paced! And yet it still bounced around like an epileptic cameraman having a fit on a field of marbles while going through the DTs during an Earthquake. It was AWFUL.

The idea behind shaky-cam is that it recreates what you'd experience going through that. Okay. Here's a little experiment to conduct: choose a quiet, empty stretch of road and jog a few dozen yards along it. Notice what you see. Then go back and jog it again with a camera strapped to the top of your head and recording. Notice how the playback makes it look bouncy and choppy as hell, way worse than what you saw with your actual eyes? That's because your brain compensates, adjusting the processing it does to give you information you can actually USE. In sensory terms, shaky-cam is essentially an autism simulator- but that has no place in what's supposed to be a coherent depiction.

[FunkyMonkee]

As far as I know, it's supposed to emulate what you'd see if you were in that situation and the camera was your eyes. It's supposed to give you, the viewer, the sense of being in the movie, like YOU'RE the one doing the running or like YOU'RE in the shoes of the person running. That one, I don't mind at all!! The one that REALLY pisses me off is when it's a static shot and the camera is SUPPOSED to be held perfectly still and they jiggle the motherfucker all over the place!! When they start doing that, I won't even watch the fucker anymore!! I had two semesters of t. v. production classes in college in the mid `80's and they drilled it into us that, with hand-held cameras, we were SUPPOSED to hold the camera as perfectly still as we could and, the day the classes ended is when EVERYBODY HAD to start jiggling the fucking camera all over the fucking place like the cameraman is having an epileptic seizure!! I don't know, maybe a bug suddenly crawled up his asshole and he's really busy trying to dig it out!!

[TrueConfection]

The first time I really noticed that was The Blair Witch Project. I wanted to leave the theater, but I was on a date and I hoped the shaking would stop and the movie would start. Spolier Alert: Neither happened, the film ended, and I lost 1:21 of my life that I'll never get back.

Now when the shaking starts, I know to stop watching because that's they best they can do.

[NathanDavis]

I've stopped watching movies right away... because of this exact thing...

[Lliam]

Really?

[NathanDavis]

yes, if overused in the first minutes... it might go on the whole movie, lol

war, action movies...

[Lliam]

Agreed. Yeah, it ruins a movie for me.

[Grond21]

Your last sentence is right on the money. It has always frustrated me and sometimes it's so bad it completely pulls me out of the story

[PraviteliNahuiValite]

I think especially on smartphones it shakes way too much when just trying to hold it straight.

They probably first use software to stabilize the video and then add the motion artificially... but that's just my inexperienced guess.

[Dinosaursandanime65]

I’m going to use it but in diminutive portions. I at the moment recall only two parts/shots when this occurs

[Leopard23]

You been watching started again?

[Leopard23]

... startrek

[NostalgiaSenpi]

It's dumb.