Modern camera movement, angle, and distance in film these days.

One of the reasons I really like older movies is due to the camera work allowing the viewer to get a sense of spatial relationship and really take in the beauty of a well staged shot.

However it seems like so much of what I see, the camera just jerks all over the place and is too close to the action to really get a sense of what is going on. Sometimes this hand held style serves a purpose - like in Cloverfield, or Blair Witch Project where it plays into the story. Even a movie like Traffic does it to get the "in your face" and "being in the chaos of the moment" feel.

But it's used too much and detracts from film. Take this shot below from Savages. It's a wonderful shot, but Stone doesn't allow the characters to have their discussion all within this one frame. The movie would have been better to hold this still for a minute or two while the characters engage in dialogue.




One thing I really liked about Revanche, Drive, and a couple other films I've seen recently is that they do allow the viewer to take in the beauty of the images they create. For example in Revanche we see the film go back to a bench along a character's jog in a park. Through multiple scenes the camera not only stays still but returns to the same spot and we get the same view almost. For me this builds up sense of being there, location, and so on. Many films I like will have the camera return to the same angle, distance, location - even when it edits into something else. Also I like the medium distance. In the world we view our surroundings in medium distance. Only when we get to manipulate items, objects, or whatever do we see things in extreme closeup. Look at these shots from Revanche.









All similar styling. Even though the distance changes a bit, and in one the angle switches. We still have spatial value and it's meaningful. Nature has created a beautiful location and the director/photographer/editor doesn't need to do anything fancy to capture this. We know where the bench is in relationship to the lake, in relationship to the trees, the sky, and the characters.

__________________
"A candy colored clown!"
Member since Fall 2002
Top 100 Films, clicky below

http://www.movieforums.com/community...ad.php?t=26201

I basically agree with you and will try to add something about this interesting subject soon. I have to say about that first shot though, from the Oliver Stone movie, that it reminds me of those Corona TV commercials set on the beach.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

It's an attention span thing, isn't it? It makes a still scene feel like it's moving around, like something's happening, even though it isn't. It seems to borrow heavily from reality TV shows, which seem almost entirely created in the editing bay, and fly the camera all over the place to make things feel busier and more eventful than they actually are.

Exactly what Yoda said. Weirdly enough, those were going to be my exact thoughts.

Heh, yeah I tend to agree. But half of the beer/drink commercials involve a beach and lounging around.

I think another contributor is decreasing average shot length in cinema. I suppose filmmakers think we like to see that, but really it's just that they shot the film like that and people simply bought tickets for it. They probably think it's successful when those people are seeing the film for other reasons entirely.

I also think a lot of it has to do with the people who sign-off on or compose the shot list (director, producer, DP, whoever has that authority depending on the project) not having a very good eye for cinematography.

I like that you used Savages in your example. I thought it was a very pretty film, but a lot of its cuts were unnecessary.

If you're into long shots go for Tarr, Angelopoulos and Jancsó.

I agree with you that present day directors jerk their camera over the place too much and shots aren't really held for a long time. Moreover, the extreme close-ups on the characters instead of the mid- or long range shots in action scenes is becoming an increasingly disturbing trend.

I do however like to add to that that there is one director nowadays who does this, but with an entirely different purpose than to give the viewer a feeling he's right there among the action. If you look at the big action scenes in Michael Mann's films, you'll notice there's a continuing trend of making them shorter and shorter (Heat > Miami Vice > Public Enemies). That's to make the action appear more realistic. These are professionals that are executing their job (part of it at least) and they don't want a big, messy firefight. They want things to be over in an instant.

Another ongoing trend is Mann's tendency to get closer and closer to his characters, especially during action sequences. That's not necessarily to show you how big a gun the guy's flashing about or how he goes about shooting another guy, but rather about their emotions and to show what they're going through. And that goes for not just the action scenes, but also for more intimate, dialogue-driven scenes.

Often times, he appears to be zooming in or out or holds a shot for no apparent reason other than to show his character's emotions and inner mechanisms. He cares more about showing why criminals and police officers do what they do and how they make their way in the world they're living in. I think Heat brilliantly displayed this; as well as Public Enemies, Miami Vice and to a lesser extent, Collateral.

So, what I'm saying here (in a very extensive way, ha) is that on the whole, I think the TS is right, but there are exceptions, Michael Mann being a prime example.

It's been going on for a long time. It's getting real irritating on televison drama shows. CSI seemed to have started it (or maybe it was Miami Vice) and now it has gotten to the point you have no talent directors misusing it. They keep cutting away and zooming in and zooming out making me dizzy.

Come to think of it, maybe some of those techniques, the hand held camera, was first done on Hill Street Blues, but back then the technique wasn't so hyped up and was more effective.

__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula

This is one reason I love 'Children Of Men' so much; there are 2 (3??) shots in that movie which are in excess of 15 minutes without a cut... not simple shots either. Now that's a good director

Too bad the movie itself was loathsome.

If you think 'long' shots are great.

&feature=channel&list=UL

I also think the 'first person/found footage/camcorder' perspective device is getting a tad 'old'; Blair Witch started it all several years ago & it's continued through 'Cloverfield', the 'Paranormal Activity' movies, 'Rec', 'The Devil Inside' etc etc

First person footage can work really well (Saving Private Ryan used it to good effect), but there appears to me now to be too many directors using this as a plot device & it's all getting a bit yawwwwwnnn to me now.