Vaseline on the lens never looked ‘dream sequence’ it looks like ‘it’s early in the morning, I have a hangover and my contacts are in the wrong eyes’.
You’re misremembering those kisses. It was kiss, chat, kiss, chat, kiss, chat, etc., so that each individual kiss was short enough to pass the censors. No circular tracking shot.
I’m starting to wonder if I have some sort of anti-close-up fetish.
I’m used to having sports and sports-like events shown on the far camera the first time; close-ups are shown during the repeats if available. I caught some sort of dancing competition involving “street dance crews” and there were so many close-ups that what I couldn’t get was any kind of overall impression of the group coreography. I know those usually involve taking turns in the spotlight but every time the camera panned out for half a second, the rest of the group had changed where they were - so, there were lots of Stuff we were missing because seeing the detail of the current soloist’s soles was so important.
I found it frustrating. I’ve seen videos taken by the dancers’ friends and put up in youtube which were much more pleasant, despite the bad camera work, lousy lighting and not particularly good sound, because I actually could see the dance 
OK, clearly it wasn’t Notorious, but I’ve seen a lot of Hays Code movies, and there are circular pan kisses out there.
There are also a few times I’ve seen circular pan used effectively to show that a character is confused or about to pass out. But yeah, simply to be “artsy,” it fails.
Wow, there’s lots of good stuff in here.
Personally, I hate what I call “the impossible camera move”. It’s so often used in CGI scenes and takes me out of the movie because if the event depicted were really happening, it would be impossible to film it in that way.
Many of the new superhero movies are rife with this and I get bored and often wander out of the room. It’s like watching someone else play a video game.
Agree 100%. The film Strictly Ballroom made me nuts because of this. So many head/shoulder shots! Aarrgh! And the fast cuts in shows like Riverdance also make me nuts. I have an attention span of longer than two seconds, thank you.
From the Wikipediaarticle on Fred Astaire:
I wish dancing movies would get back to this.
The second Astaire innovation:
Sigh. Loved to watch that man dance. He was not sexy, EXCEPT on the dance floor.
Not sure I’m following you. Can you give an example?
I’m not a big fan of the over abundance of camera movement to show off a scene. The camera work doesn’t need to be exciting even during a dialog scene. You can hold the camera still sometimes, you know?
Hopefully I don’t ramble too much here…
Imagine some supernatural or impossible event took place. If there were a cameraman present, the footage captured would look a certain way. This is because cameramen cannot fly or levitate, or pass through glass or any number of things.
Witness “Jurassic Park”: Spielberg left empty places in the scenes for CGI dinosaurs to be inserted, and the net result is that it looks like a regular camera crew filmed some real dinosaurs. The footage looks a lot like, say, a nature documentary filmed in Africa featuring elephants.
Now, if the camera were to float through the herd of dinosaurs, unfettered by any of the laws of physics that constrain a real cameraman and crew filming a real event, the audience can subconsciously detect this and have their suspension of disbelief interrupted.
So, that’s an example of a director showing restraint and not breaking the suspension of disbelief spell by getting carried away. I’m willing to believe in dinosaurs, but the notion of a flying cameraman would be too much for me to go along with.
Many of the modern films have hyper-active camera shots that are distracting in their kinetic-ness and serve as a constant reminder to me that what I am watching is fake, for if those events were to happen and be photographed, no camera crew in the world could capture them in such a way.
Even Spielberg gets carried away sometimes. In 1989’s Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, there is a shot in which a German airplane comes at the camera from infinity and concludes with us in the cockpit with the pilot who delivers a line. Although airplanes and pilots exist, the shot, no matter how well rendered, serves as a reminder to me as a viewer that it is fake because there is no way in the world such a shot could be filmed in real life. Thus, it’s a distraction to me.
I absolutely agree with this. The camera should be unobtrusive, not call attention to itself.
Admit it, now. The first time you saw that, not only were you incredibly impressed, but puzzled how they did it?
The second time, not so much?
Have you seen All That Jazz? Did you hate the dance scenes?
You should check out the films of Yasujirō Ozu. In all his films - and he made more than fifty - the camera never moves. It never tracks, it never pans, it never tilts. It also never zooms.
And before the Beatles, that’s what they used to say about kids, too. 
I’ve seen it several times and I liked the dance scenes very much.
There’s something in between lot of movement and no movement.
Sorry, not getting the point in the context of this discussion. Color me dense.
Cool. In film school, I attended a class on “filming dance,” where the two main examples were Fred Astaire - the camera keeps its distance, simply records the dancer, with his or her full body shown - and this scene from All That Jazz, with pretty quick editing, constantly shifting camera angles, etc. Two very different styles. Me, I like 'em both.
Sure there is. Ozu is worth checking out, though, especially for those who value stillness, serenity and rigid camerawork - and going by the discussion so far, there’s a few of them here. His last film, An Autumn Afternoon, might be a good place to start. Very beautiful.
That’s something Wong Kar-Wai’s cinematographer often says. He’s criticising the old-timers, see, who want both kids and cameras to basically “sit still in a corner and just observe.” What he likes is for both kids and cameras to dance around, freak out, go bananas. He’s modern like that.
I think another good example would be this roughly 40 second shot from The Avengers. The difference is, I absolutely loved it. It was like a comic book splash page come to life.
Sometimes the camera is on a robot arm. I like the effect, depending on the movie.
I also really like the film Stranger than Paradise, though, where a story is told in vignettes, each with a stationary camera, and separated by a few black frames. It’s also a B&W movie that was made in the 1980s. It’s a great movie. It’s Jim Jarmusch’s second film, and IIRC, the first to have wide release due to its winning a prize at Cannes.
That is an excellent example of exactly what I was talking about. It’s just too much for me though I’m glad you liked it.
Stalkercam. Close-up of tree trunk. Pan left about two inches. Focus on our heroes’ backs, from a distance, with a tree leaf in the foreground.
I really hate it when a movie switches scenes from a darker scene to a very bright scene instantly. It tears me out of the movie because I physically wince. What’s really annoying is that most of the time it isn’t even necessary to the movie. It shows a juvenility in editing.
That’s my biggest problem with Christopher Nolan’s Batman films; the fight scenes are so murky and confusing that I had no idea what was going on. Is Batman beating up bad guys? Are the bad guys beating up Batman? Is Batman even in this scene?
You certainly cited a great example; the Heat shootout, despite all the chaos and violence, is absolutely clear at all times. You could practically draw a diagram of that scene after watching it. I also liked that Mann showed characters aiming carefully between shots (instead of spraying bullets around wildly) and reloading their weapons.
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom contains an excellent example of this kind of subtlety. There’s a shot of Indiana and his pals emerging from a mine tunnel and finding themselves on a sheer cliff face. It’s just a set combined with a matte painting of the cliff, but Spielberg added a slight rocking motion to give the impression that the shot was filmed from a helicopter.