The Dreaded 'Shaky Cam'

I have been watching a few films recently and they have had the dreaded shaky cam in them. I absolutly HATE shaky cam with a passion! Its not needed. It doesnt bring any more drama to a scene or to a fight, there is no need of it and it needs to stop. It brings me out of the film as I cant see or even tell wtf is going on half the time.



Remember the good old days where the camera was still and the scenes were just filmed and we could see them. The fight scenes were perfect and you got more in the shot.

Its not just fighting scenes etc its shaky cam when the character is running and the camera is jumping about and shaking everywhere... the last time I ran somewhere Im pretty sure my head and/or eyes werent shaking everything making everything blurry and funny.



Shaky cam needs to stop.

__________________

~In the event of a Zombie Uprising, remember to sever the head or destroy the brain!~

The crew of Star Trek are in space and their ship tends to gradually shake when there's turbulence of any kind. And there's plenty of that. lol So I believe the camera will always be moving about for that.

I just googled shaky cam but I get your point about space

The only time I've liked shaky cam was during a short scene at the beginning of one of my favorite movies, Strange Days. It worked perfectly with what was going on. Otherwise, I'd rather do without it.

When I think "Shaky Cam" in the most negative sense I immediately think of the The Hunger Games and the plane fight scene in The Amazing Spider Man 2. HATED the use of shaky cam there! And I like The Hunger Games too. Then again they fixed that issue in the sequel.

__________________
Fear and Loathing in MoFo... The Gunslinger 45's Top 50 Favorite Films

In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's reviews

It's disorienting and annoying! In most fight scenes these days it seems like the cameraman is having a fit, it ridiculous!

Sometimes it annoys me other times it does not. There was shaky cam in The Expendables but it did not bother me and I love that movie. But other times it can get on my nerves. I much prefer a fight scene when the camera is still and pulled back so I can see the entire fight.

Another annoying thing, that the new Star Trek films are full of, is lense flares. Every single scene in those films has a bright blue flare slowly burning across the screen, it's like watching a film through a window that has the sun shining through it.

I stopped watching those after the first one. If I want to see Wrath of Khan, I will just watch Wrath of Khan.

Reminds me of the Blair Witch Project and Cloverfield. My impression is that, like a dark background, it could be used to hide production mistakes.

This was the moment I was done with shaky cam and 'gritty' blue filters. Opening scene of Narc.



Actually, I was probably already done iwth shaky cam by then, but this was the moment which crystalised it. That's not to say that there isn't a place for it, but it's ubiquitous use is so annoying. Worse than that, it usually feels like something the director has done in order to show he can something or something he's been asked/told to do by a producer.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

I have mixed feelings. Years ago, if you constructed an action sequence, you would construct it much in the same fashion as every other shot, (Master Shot, Medium, Close, etc.). Much more recently, (maybe 80's-90's and into the 2000's), action sequences have become a much more Formulaic Construction, (relying on editing and montage), to give audiences a more "rhythmic" but "paced" feel to such sequences. (Contrast Flynn's Robin Hood to a Diesel flick as an example). I think the "attempt" in "shaky cam" is to validate the mise-en-scene/Realism as a way of providing another alternative to the edit-montage/Formulism approach with such sequences. (That's the hunch anyway, since I've listened to many directors complain about being "trapped" within the Formalist style, especially when it comes to pace and cutting on action post-MTV Generation). On "Shaky Cam" itself, my personal feelings is that it's a "technique"... and just like any other "technique" within film the director should draw from it when appropriate, but just like anything else that gets overused, the audience will tire of it fast and then it will be back to the drawing board looking for the next "innovation" to keep things fresh. Overall, I guess I'm not warm or cold to it, I'm indifferent until I come to an instance where it works in one film, (and I enjoy it), or the very next moment come to it again in a film where it doesn't work, (and then share distaste for it). In which case it seems I have less preference for the technique itself, and more of a preference for the films themselves.

__________________
Imagine an eye unruled by man-made laws of perspective, an eye unprejudiced by compositional logic, an eye which does not respond to the name of everything but which must know each object encountered in life through an adventure of perception. How many colors are there in a field of grass to the crawling baby unaware of 'Green'?

-Stan Brakhage

Gladiator is the only movie I can think of where I actually like shaky cam. Shaky cam in movies like The Hunger Games,* Man of Steel, Cloverfield, and especially Battle: Los Angeles really annoys me. If directors insist on using shaky cam when there isn't any need for it then they should be required to give part of their salaries to theaters so the audience can have free motion sickness tablets if they want them.


*To be fair THG at least had the excuse of needing to dodge an R rating.

__________________
You will find that if you look for the light, you can often find it. But if you look for the dark, that is all you will ever see.
Iroh

This is a pretty decent forum if you hate the shaky cam (and I do!).

__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...

Tony Scott's films are the worst for shaky cam. Trying watching Unstoppable without feeling dizzy.

For the most part I don't like the shaky cam shots either, especially in fight sequences with a very tight framing of the characters.
Some films are so bad at this, that all you see in a fight is: a fist, a nose, a knee!

And I'm thinking, who's fist? who's nose? and a knee closeup???

I feel shaky cam is an easy way for directors to compensate for their lack of talent shooting action scenes. I loathe shaky cam and very seldom is it used properly,most of the time it is heavily distracting.

I hate it.

^^I agree with everything you said above Lucas

Glad to see im not the only one who can't stand it! What made me realise I had to mention it was, Battle Los Angeles, I watched it recently and it ruined the film for me.

I can't remember with absolute certainty the title of the film because I have not seen it but I remember hearing a review of a film named "Rat Tails" (though that could be wrong). Mark Kermode reviewed it and said he wanted to buy the director a tripod saying "I am sure there is a good story in the film somewhere but the problem is the camera will not stay still long enough for me to find out".

When "Blair Witch Project" came out the film was and still is for me a masterpiece in it's originality and it's realism. I know others hated and stated they felt sea sick watching the film because of the hand held camera but to be fair the premise of the film is based upon hand held footage so if that puts you off you should have seen that coming and really it is only you who is to blame.

Also and I am not sure if this would count but the camera affects used in the Evil Dead 1 & 2 are just amazing, yes it may be seen as hokey but I think it works. I guess I feel the same way as some people do for shaky cam as I do for special effects and large explosions. If you have to rely on them then something is missing.

__________________
twitter: @ginock
livejournal film reviews: http://windsoc.livejournal.com/
photos: http://www.instagram.com/christopherwindsor