I haven’t read the thread, since I’m just taking a little break from my data.
I see three kinds of ‘shaky cam’. One is as the OP describes: Wild movements, as if the camera was being handled by a three-year-old. Another one is where the camera is being hand-held and, even though the operator is trying to be steady, there is involuntary movement merely by virtue of it’s not being on a tripod. The last one is where the camera operator is intentionally introducing movement so as to mimic the look of the unintentional movement of the handheld camera.
The ‘wobbly cam’/‘three-year-old camera operator’ shots can be effective. But only when they are appropriate. Using it in battle scenes seems like a natural – but it’s overused. It was good the first time; everyone else is being a copycat. Sam Raimi used ‘shaky cam’ to good effect. The thing is though, that he was trying to make the shot steady. That is, steadier than someone trying to get a shot while running with a hand-held camera.
The inadvertent movements of a handheld camera occur when the operator is trying to keep the camera steady. Documentaries often have this movement because the shooters are often ‘one-man bands’ or events are happening quickly, so there is no time to set up a shot. In narrative films, there may be space limitations and there is no choice but to hand hold; or the director may call for a ‘quick shot’ and the operator grabs it without setup. I think the connection to documentaries, especially, lends the handheld shot with minimal movement a sense of reality.
The vérité mimicry – the intentional addition of movement to a handheld shot so as to make the take more ‘real’ – bugs the hell out of me. It’s obviously intentional movement, and I pick it out every time. They’re not fooling anyone.
If I’m understanding you correctly, I think you’re referring to epistolary novels, like Dracula, Carrie, Bridget Jones’s Diaries, Diary of a Wimpy Kid, etc. It’s still reasonably common.
Yeah, that’s the one I see most in the commercials I was referencing above. They overdo the amateur handheld look to such an extent that it’s obvious to me and takes me out of that “verite” feeling they are trying to convey. And that’s also what often gets my bullshitometer going when another viral video comes around with something extraordinary/surprising happening and tips me off that it’s not real documentary footage.
Just watching Orphan Black while reading this thread and it seems shaky cam is becoming a part of every show. The style of O.B. is nothing like a mockumentary, but the camera never stops moving either. Zooms are extremely close, but not in a jerky fashion. And the camera doesn’t really shake, but it’s more like it’s floating in a tank of water. Constant slight drift.
Another bizarre style is Mr. Robot. Strange camera angles, off-center framing, and an unusually static camera.
But apparently people now like that kind of stuff. I’ve read endless praise about Mr. Robot. After four episodes I still didn’t see why and I finally gave up when some guy paid a homeless person so he could beat him up. If I want to see that kind of inhumane idiocy I’ll just watch the news. Never saw any robots, by the way.
I have to admit, as a visual artist myself, though of the static photo kind, I love Mr. Robot’s cinematography/photo direction (and the general series as well, but let’s just stick to the aesthetic.)
Yes, but not ubiquitous. IIRC, early novels were considered frivolous or even immoral because they were fiction and thus dishonest or false, and the diary or letter framing device was an exceedingly common method of making a novel acceptable for respectable people to read. When an author uses the method today, it’s not for that reason.
Huh. I’ve never heard that explanation. I’d be curious to read more about this. I always just assumed it was that way for the same reason people might use the epistolary form today, like to give it that extra sense of realism and/or to tell the story from multiple first-person points of view.
I only had the vaguest recollection of it from university 2_ years ago. But some googling found this to prove to myself that my memory is not unduly flawed.
IIRC, early novels were considered frivolous or even immoral because they were fiction and thus dishonest or false, and the diary or letter framing device was an exceedingly common method of making a novel acceptable for respectable people to read. When an author uses the method today, it’s not for that reason.
But some googling found