As I read reviews of You’re Next, a movie that I
enjoyed, I’m noticing something that, in all honesty, has irked me for a long,
long time. There’s an element in that
film which illustrates a trend that I feel is a cancer eating away at the heart
of modern filmmaking. It’s something
that has all but ruined the fine art of cinematography and threatens to negate
the artistry of fight choreography and visual effects in general. What bothers me most is that I don’t see
anyone else mentioning this blight on modern cinema. I’ve been accused quite a few times of sounding like a broken
record about this subject, but as long as it persists, I’m going to call it
out. I’m speaking, of course, about
shaky cam and the silence of my fellow shaky cam haters.
As a FFF, Cloverfield gets a pass. |
I do have to qualify my hatred a bit. While I’m not a big fan of most found
footage flicks, that’s not what I’m talking about at all. You see, when the film is shot from the
actual perspective of a character in the story, it makes sense. Even in a movie that’s not a FFF (found
footage flick), if we’re supposed to be seeing the action from a character’s
point of view, it makes sense. When the
camera is the omniscient cinema gaze of the audience, which is a pretentious,
film school way to say that the camera is outside of the action representing
the viewer who sees it all, there is no excuse for it to be bouncing around
like Mohammad Ali shot it.
I get the theory behind why people do it. It’s supposed to make the scene seem frantic
and intense by not allowing the viewer to get a good look at what’s going on or
take in all of the information on the screen.
You know what else that’s a description of? Poor framing. Bad camera
work. Crappy directing. If your camera tricks basically have the
same effect as a good old-fashioned Ric Flair thumb to the eye, maybe you
shouldn’t do it. Actually, the real
reason a lot of directors employ this technique is to mask their inability to
build tension or properly choreograph an action sequence. Yeah, you heard me. Most of you use shaky cam because you
suck. Here’s a rule of thumb; if you
take 10 screen shots from any scene, you should be able to tell what’s
happening in at least 8 of them. In You’re
Next, there were times when you couldn’t even tell what character you were
looking at. Is that really supposed to
add realism? Sorry, but at the first
sign of danger I don’t suddenly turn into an epileptic bobble-head.
For those of you who say that it really does lend energy to
a scene, I want you to watch this. In
my mind, this is one of the greatest action sequences ever filmed. It’s from The Wild Bunch. Just watch…
What did you see?
Motivated camera movement. Rapid
fire editing with expert timing.
Amazing shots. A truly
adrenaline-pumping action sequence. You
know what you didn’t see? Shaky
cam. Now explain to me again how you
need it to convey the intensity of a scene.
Name ONE action sequence where some inept cameradolt is shakin’ it like
a Polaroid picture is as effective as that.
Yeah, that’s hat I thought. Make an actual shotlist, hold the damn
camera still, and have a little respect for your craft.
I’m well aware that shaky cam is not a new phenomenon. Hell, its use was being argued in Cahiers
du Cinéma decades before I was even the fetus of Celluloid. The
difference is that back then it was used
occasionally. Now virtually every new
film I see employs it to some point.
The vast majority of what I watch is horror, so logically that’s where I
‘m assaulted by it the most. Honestly, what percentage of kill scenes in
horror
flicks from the last 10 years didn’t have shaky cam? Ten? Twenty?
It’s a freakin’ epidemic! The first time I really noticed it was in 28
Days Later, a film that many consider a modern horror classic. I
can’t stand it. I remember leaving the theater and saying “why the hell
did they
spend money on good zombie makeups and not even let us get a good look
at them?
Chernobyl Diaries, a definite shaky cam offender. |
Don’t get me wrong; there are rare occasions when shaky cam
can be effective in the hands of a skilled craftsman. There’s shaky cam in Dr. Strangelove. It fit the gimmick of Natural Born
Killers perfectly. The Cohen
Brothers use it with varying results.
The opening battle scene of Saving Private Ryan is
brilliant. Kinji Fukasaku used it in almost all of his
movies, from the underrated Battles Without Honor and Humanity to the
landmark Battle Royale. Then
again, shaky cam also caused his prostate cancer. No, seriously. It
actually says so on his Wikipedia page.
Look it up. You can always trust
Wikipedia, right? Anyway, the
difference is that they used it to flavor already great films/scenes. Take the Saving Private Ryan scene
for example. The shots themselves, the
editing, the sound design, the performances; they were all great without the
shaky cam. It wasn’t the driving idea
behind the look or action. In far too
many scenes these days, shaky cam is the only thing it has going for it. If the camera was still, it would look like
shit. Then again, there are some
otherwise great scenes that are ruined by it.
I guess what I’m saying is that it can be good as an occasionally used tool. The problem is, it’s the only thing in a lot
of filmmakers’ toolkit. In cases like Michael Bay, shaky cam is a lame-ass tool
weilded by a lame-ass tool. I couldn’t
resist that one.
Maybe I’m just behind the times and just not down with the
way movies are made these days. Am I
just an old schooler yelling at those damn kids on my lawn? I mean, people in the 30’s said James Whale
was destroying the art form by moving the camera too much. Today, film buffs,
including me, consider him a visionary.
In his heyday, people said Mario Bava’s swooping, flowing, fluid camera
work would make people sick. The
maestro’s camera acrobatics are a far cry from the quease inducing extent it’s
gone to now. These days there are
filmmakers who build an entire career out of looking like their cameras are
mounted on jackhammers. And NO ONE
calls them on it. That’s how bullshit
like Battle Los Angeles happens.
Side note, I'm not even taking into account all of the issues raised by movie goers who are susceptible to motion sickness. That's a whole different can of worms. I'm just arguing for those who, like me, are sickened by crappy craftsmanship on the screen.
So I guess my question is this… am I the only one who
loathes third person shaky cam? I never
see it mentioned in reviews, and I can’t help but wonder why. Do you truly think it’s an effective
cinematic technique? Do you just ignore
it? Have you just accepted that it’s
the way things are and there’s no point in bitching about it? Is there a widespread Parkinson’s outbreak
among cameramen and I’m just being an insensitive asshole? These are not rhetorical questions,
Cellmates. I implore my fellow movie
fans to sound off. I want to know what
you think about this. If you’re sick of
it like me, let’s take shaky/wobble cam to task. Let’s do our best to drive it back to the cinematic hell it came
from. If you’re not, please enlighten
me as to the style’s merit. In the
meantime, I’m going to keep the horror world accountable. Edmund Burke once said “All
that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” Shaky cam is a true evil (and not in a good
way) threatening the artistic medium I love.
As long as hack filmmakers use it to hide laziness and good filmmakers
kowtow to the trend, I’m going to do the only thing I can… continue to be the
lone voice crying out in the wilderness.
Side note, I'm not even taking into account all of the issues raised by movie goers who are susceptible to motion sickness. That's a whole different can of worms. I'm just arguing for those who, like me, are sickened by crappy craftsmanship on the screen.