Celluloid Soapbox: Am I The Only One?

Celluloid Soapbox is a new feature on SOC.  Normally I keep things pretty positive around here.  Every now and then, however, I need to blow off a little steam.  From now on, any time you see the words "Celluloid Soapbox," you'll know that I'm about to launch into an angry tirade about someone or something that I feel is a blight on horror movies or the horror community.  I warn you Cellmates, it's rant time...

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.

Shaky cam action/chase/kill sequences aren’t even the biggest offense.  What makes my blood really boil is when nothing is happening and the camera is wobbling.  Even if you subscribe to the argument that shaky cam helps action, what’s the excuse for that?  If two people are having a calm conversation, the camera should not be bobbing and weaving.  That’s just bad camera work.  You used to get  fired if you couldn’t hold the damn camera still. Now it’s a prerequisite.  If you want to shoot hand-held, find someone who can do it well.  Otherwise, bite the bullet and get a tripod.  Don’t tell me it’s a budgetary constraint.  You can get one at Walmart for twenty bucks.

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.

Violence of the Lambs: A Review of You're Next

SPOILER ALERT:  It’s virtually impossible to review this flick without giving away one major surprise.  It’s not a surprise in the plot.  You know me, that’s not how I roll.  It’s actually a spoiler as to the nature of the film itself.  Other reviews have spoiled that surprise already, but I think it’s only fair to let you know ahead of time.  It probably wouldn’t effect your enjoyment of the flick, but if you want to go in completely blind you may want to hold off on reading this review until after you see the movie.  There.  Now you know.  I don’t wanna hear anyone bitching later.

When I first saw the trailer for You’re Next, featuring the masterful musical choice of Lou Reed’s song Perfect Day, I thought I knew what the flick was going to be.  I was expecting just another entry in the recently very popular home invasion subgenre.  A different, hopefully better, take on The Strangers’ formula.  Little did I know that the film’s promotion had pulled a fast one on me.  I was expecting gritty violence.  What I got was gritty violence and… laughs.  Lots of them.  You’re Next, a movie I expected to be a run of the mill survival horror flick, turned out to be the best horror comedy so far this year.

Synopsis: When a gang of masked, ax-wielding murderers descend upon the Davison family reunion, the hapless victims seem trapped...until an unlikely guest of the family proves to be the most talented killer of all.

All too often with horror comedies, the delicate balance between the two elements is mishandled.  You’re Next walks that line well.  The audience at the screening I attended roared with laughter, but the jumpier members of the crowd shrieked a few times too.  The scares and laughs are placed perfectly, setting each other up with expert timing.  As far as the comedy goes, it’s superb.  Writer Simon Barrett has crafted one hell of a screenplay.  It’s not so much poking fun at the genre as it is telling a serious story with funny characters.  The dialogue is great, particularly the interplay between the family members.  If only the bickering at my family reunions could be this entertaining.  While we’re talking about the screenplay, I like that Barrett plays most of his hand early, trotting out the big reveal early and letting it play out slowly.  That was smart.  There are still a couple of twists left (that the astute horror fan will see coming a mile away), but giving away the main one before the audience gets the chance to call it was a good move.

Of course, that screenplay wouldn’t mean a thing without actors who could do it justice.  The cast definitely does well with the material.  AJ Bowden is one of my favorite current genre actors.  Mark my words, one day he will be a cult favorite and will be charging stupid amounts of money for his autograph at conventions. He’s excellent in this flick, but I feel like he was underutilized.  I think he should have played Nicholas Tucci’s role and vice versa.  They’re both very good, but I think that casting switch could have played a little more to both of their strengths.  Rob Moran and horror stalwart Barbara Crampton are splendid (I told you I would bring that word back) as the parents.  The true standout is Joe Swanberg.  I don’t know if he’s a giant bag of douche in real life as certain members of the press have asserted, but he certainly portrays one convincingly.  He gets most of the best lines, and his delivery is on point.  Sharni Vinson also shines but, at this point, the less said about her role the better.

On the horror side of things, we’ve got some well-executed jump scares.  A couple of the particularly enjoyable ones play off of the background/foreground model a-la Halloween.  There’s also some commendable gore.  The best part; it all appeared to be practical in the close ups.  In fact, there’s a refreshing overall lack of obvious CGI in You’re Next.  Other reviewers have lauded the film’s suspense, but I didn’t find that to be the case.  Then again, a movie really has to operate well outside of normal horror tropes to keep me guessing.  From the reaction of the crowd, it appeared that those less jaded than I spent at least some of the movie on the edge of their seats.

There is one huge, glaring problem with You’re Next, though.  I HATED the way it was shot.  Outside of found footage movies, where shaky cam makes sense, this is the most spastically jerky movie I’ve seen in years.  I already hate shaky cam action sequences, but this goes above and beyond.  The camera can’t even hold still when nothing is happening.  There is absolutely no excuse for the camera to be bobbing and swaying during a scene of a couple lying in bed talking.  In the “dinner attack” scene, the camera is jumping so spastically that it’s sometimes impossible to even tell which character you’re looking at.   Director Adam Wingard has been criticized before for his excessive use of the “cameraman with Parkinson’s” technique.  It’s a damn shame too, because there are a handful of sustained shots and slow motion sequences that look fantastic.  I weep for the movie this could have been if it was shot well.  If you’re susceptible to motion sickness, you might have issues with this one.  I don’t have that problem.  I’m just nauseated by crappy filmmaking.

Random Thought #1: One of the creepy animal masks the killers wear is very similar to one worn by a WWE wrestler that debuted recently.  I lost count of the times I heard the name “Wyatt family” spoken in the audience.  Brilliant marketing.  Well-played Vince.

Random Thought #2: I expect to see a lot of lamb masks this Halloween.

Random Thought #3: There are times when an amazing synth score straight out of the 80’s kicks in.  It is truly beautiful.  Retro done right.

Random Thought #4: If I do another edition of The Horror Movie Darwin Awards, there’s one in this flick.

You’re Next was a pleasant surprise.  Usually I complain about misleading advertising, but I like being thrown a curveball now and then.  I laughed the whole way through, either at the wit of the flick or the screams in the audience.  It’s well acted, well written, and well paced.  The only problem is the terrible camera work.  If nonstop shaky cam doesn’t bother you, then disregard that part of the review.  It seriously hampered my enjoyment of the movie.  It certainly didn’t ruin it, however.  You’re Next was a damn good time.  Plus, they get points for using the right form of “you’re.”  A surprisingly fun flick that delivers a lot of chuckles and a few jolts.  7 “creepy sheep” out of 10.  Nathan says check it out.

30 Day Horror Challenge Day 29 - Your least favorite horror film of all time.

Coincidentally, my friend Nate and I were just talking about why I can’t stand this movie last night at the Murder Junkies concert. After my post about how it was unfair to judge Scream based on the hordes of awful imitators, I can’t rightfully hate on 28 Days Later because of the whole fast zombie thing. These weren’t even zombies, they were infected humans. The whole idiotic notion of running undead zombies that this movie kicked off was the fault of the imitators who missed the point, not the original. What I can hate on it for is the thing I hated about it before it became the standard way to shoot mainstream horror. That abomination is 3^rd person shaky cam.

As I walked out of the movie theater, I said to my friends something to the effect of “why the hell would you spend that much on makeup and effects and then intentionally shoot it to where no one can get a good look at it?” Stills from the movie show some great makeup and set design. Too bad you can’t see it. Little did I know that this would become the predominant way to shoot an action scene in Hollywood. The effect has especially been profound on horror movies, and has nearly obliterated the suspensefully built and well crafted and framed horror sequence.

There is a big difference between first person and third person shaky cam. It makes sense when the shot is supposed to be the subjective view of one of the characters. In a movie like Blair Witch Project, Paranormal Activity, Rec, or any of the “found footage” type of movies dating all the way back to Cannibal Holocaust, I have no problem with it. If it is a POV shot, like Jason watching campers through the trees or the opening sequence of Halloween, I have no problem with it. When the camera is supposed to represent the omniscient eye of the viewer and not a character within the scene, however, it doesn’t make sense.

I know the argument for the style is “it conveys the franticness of the situation.” That can be conveyed more effectively by effective panning, dollying, and other smooth camera movement. Ideally, it would be conveyed through the movement of the action within the frame. The score adds a lot to it also. The problem with this is that these things take more effort and skill. Shaking the camera to try to make a scene more intense is just lazy filmmaking. I’m not saying all shots should be static. Then they look like a stage play. You can look at Tod Browning’s Dracula for an example of that. What I’m saying is that there is a big difference in artfully done camera movement and making your film look like it was shot by a bobblehead doll.

28 Days Later wasn’t the first movie to use third person shaky cam. It’s been used since the early 80’s, primarily in war movies. During battle scenes, the camera would shake to simulate explosions and such. The first instance of it being used in a horror movie that I could find was Jacob’s Ladder, but that was in the war sequences as well. The difference is it was used sparingly. There’s barely a single static shot in 28 Days later. The freakin’ camera can’t hold still on shots of two characters talking for crying out loud!

I have a different theory of why the filmmakers decided to do this. They shot this film with Cannon XL-1 cameras. At the time, the technology of blowing mini DV up to show it on a screen the size of most movie theaters was in its infancy. It looked grainy. I think they shook the damn camera so much to mask the video quality in some places by not letting the audience get a good look at it. The merits of that can be debated, but since then filmmakers have used it to excess just because it’s the current style. It’s taken us all the way to Battlefield LA, which uses it to such overkill that it seems that they are intentionally trying to make their film unwatchable.

The modern fascination with third person shaky cam can arguably be traced back to the opening sequence of Saving Private Ryan. Once again, it is a war movie, but it became the Hollywood standard. 28 Days Later started the horror genre’s use of the technique, so it holds a special place of contempt for me. I’m not blaming 28 Days Later simply for it’s followers, I hated the shooting style in that movie from the moment I saw it and before anyone decided to emulate it. Third person shaky cam is a poor substitute for well directed action and creative use of camera movement. It is a crutch used by those who don’t know how to properly shoot a horror action sequence. It’s a shame too, because 28 Days Later had a lot going for it. The bobblehead cameraman technique ruined it though. Two severed thumbs down. Nathan says don’t check out movies like this, and if you absolutely must, download them. If movies with third person shaky cam don’t make any money, maybe filmmakers will start holding the damn camera steady.

Drive Angry and Paul: Exceptions to the rule.

I get accused sometimes of sounding like a broken record. People say I bitch too much about my 2 major pet peeves in cinema right now, CGI and third person shaky cam. This is true, but in my defense, it’s because almost every movie I go see contains copious amounts of both. It seems no one does practical effects any more, and if they do, they can’t hold the damn camera still long enough to see them. I went to see Season of the Witch a couple of weeks ago, but didn’t write a review. Why? Because aside from a great performance by Ron Pearlman (who should have gotten top billing as it really is his movie), it would have been the old “bad CGI and needless shaky cam” rant again. In the last two days, however, I have seen a couple of movies that do something rare, commendable, and exciting. They use these two overdone trappings of new millennium Hollywood well. Yes folks, I’m about to say something good about a bouncing camera and a digitally created character. Yes, I’m fine. If you do that “he must be sick” hand to the forehead routine, I’ll bite it off. Oh, and both of these flicks I’m going to talk about get two severed thumbs up. Nathan says check ‘em out.

First I went to see Paul. No, it’s not horror, but I enjoyed the hell out of this movie. It wasn’t quite as good as Shaun of the Dead (then again 95% of movies aren’t) or Hot Fuzz, but it was an enjoyable comedy with enough classic sci-fi references to keep the geeks happy. Before anyone gets offended, I have a right to use “geek” for the same reason black people can use the “N” word and gay people get to use the “F” word. I are one. Basically I’d call this a grown up ET. It’s a more mainstream oriented movie than Shaun or Fuzz, but it is funny, which is more than I can say for 80% of the comedies I’ve seen in the last few years. The actual character of Paul, the alien that Simon Pegg and Nick Frost find, is quite possibly the most fully realized digitally created character in movie history. Yeah, Avatar, blah blah blah. I haven’t seen Avatar and have no desire to, so for the purposes of this discussion it doesn’t exist. Besides, this wasn’t motion captured, it was animated. The creature actually looks like he belongs in the shot with the actors. The small folds of the skin, the way the shading on the character always perfectly matched the lighting of the shot, and the emotion and, for lack of a better word, humanity that they manage to infuse this CGI character with is incredible. He looked so natural that it was easy to forget for a moment that he was animated and just accept him as part of the scene. Paul has proved to me that great CGI is possible. Unless you’re making a Syfy original, you have no excuse for bad CGI ever again guys.

Today I finally caught up with Drive Angry. I saw it in glorious, mind blowing, no glasses required 2D! Honestly, I saw nothing that seemed like it would have been better in 3D and maybe without the extra 5 bucks added on to the ticket this wouldn’t have tanked so bad at the box office. Hollywood, trust me on this one, use 3D sparingly. If it only happens now and then, people will pay fifteen bucks for a ticket because it’s an event. If every other movie is 3D, it’s not a novelty any more, and therefore not worth the extra cost. It’s a shame too, because this is a downright fun flick. Watching Grindhouse and Machete was a fun throwback to 70’s horror and action flicks, but it felt like a tribute rather than the genuine article. Like a cover song. There were times watching Drive Angry, however, that the advances in film technology itself is the only way you could tell it wasn’t some lost classic from 1978. The characters were WAY over the top and spouted non stop one liners. The vintage muscle cars were beautiful. The whole “Satan cult” angle definitely had that late 70’s early 80’s “satanic panic” era feel. From the revenge road trip plot to the Meatloaf sound alike playing over the final scene, this was big, bloody, loud, sleazy retro goodness. Gratuitous nudity? Check. Gratuitous violence? Check. Gratuitous Tom Atkins? Check. The acting is good, especially from Willian Fichtner. We even get a mid-coital shootout. C'mon, how often do you get to see that? My only problem with this flick? Three or four really bad CGI shots. Yes, I know I’m bitching about the same old thing again, but it really did stick out like a sore thumb. Leah brought up the point that those shots may have looked better in 3D. True, I can’t really say, but I highly doubt it.

Another strength of this flick is the great car chases. This is where the actual good use of 3^rd person shaky cam comes in. Defenders of 3^rd person shaky cam say that it is used to give the audience a feel of the franticness of a situation. I don’t know about you, but if my vision in the heat of a stressful moment looked the way these scenes are usually filmed, it would probably mean my neck was broken. Seriously, most action sequences these days look like that were shot by a bobble head doll. If the camera is playing the role of the omniscient eye, IT DOESN’T MAKE SENSE FOR IT TO SHAKE. In Drive Angry, the shots from the outside of the cars are generally kept pretty steady. The camera only shakes when the action is taking place inside a moving car. There is a fight scene in an RV that is speeding and weaving through traffic. The camera jumps and sways all over the place just like you would in an RV bouncing all over the road. It makes sense. Shots of Nicholas Cage driving from outside his car are steady. Shots from inside the car when he isn’t driving crazy are steady. When the car starts ping-ponging at high speed around the road, the shots from inside the car shake. THAT MAKES SENSE! If the viewer was there, their vision would actually look like that. This is the type of situation where third person shaky cam adds to the realism of a scene rather than taking the viewer out with over stylized crap.

There it is. Hell froze over for a moment. I praised the use of CGI in one flick and 3^rd person shaky cam in another. You see folks, from now on if you hear me carrying on my crusade against the twin evils of modern cinema, know that I’m not just blindly condemning these things across the board. They can be done well, and when they are, I will point that out just as quickly. Besides, nothing can be all bad all the time, right? What? Twilight? Nickelback? Jersey Shore? Ok, fine. I stand corrected.