I have noticed within the past few years that low budget movies make a stupid attempt to hide their failures, in acting, scene setting and other sundries, by shooting most of the film in extreme closeup and shaky cam. Every frame is filled up by the actors face so that only the nose and the eyes are visible. Shaky cams and frantic editing makes for incredibly horrible viewing. This usually is found in low budget films but then along came Greengrass and the Hunger Games. Why do they do it. What is the point in making such an unwatchable movie.
Can you give some examples?
What does The Hunger Games have to do with low budget films?
How did you see these movies? Because in another thread (about the House Hunters: Comedians on Couches episodes) someone described seeing extreme closeups like that when watching the episodes on YouTube. Someone else suggested that those closeups were an attempt to avoid being caught for violating the copyright.
If you’re talking about Paul Greengrass, I don’t think he’s known for close-ups, I think he’s known for massive series of jump cuts, crashing cars, and more crashing cars. But even when Matt Damon is being chased around Moscow by Dr. McCoy, you see plenty of wide shots.
I don’t remember ultra closeup (“nostril” shots) in Hunger Games or Bourne movies (though maybe in the the fight scenes, which were cut too fast to tell what’s going on).
As an aside, I love the stories of Greengrass and Damon running around foreign cities with no camera crew, no lighting, just two guys being totally ignored by other pedestrians.
Moved to Cafe Society.