I just came home from watching Mondovino . A large percentage of the film was clearly shot without a tripod and had a lot of up and down shaking. Both Ms. Plan B and I were kind of dizzy/squeamish right after the film.
Is there a name for this technique? A rationale? Is this considered sophisticated or cultured in some way? Do people appreciate this kind of shot? Or did they just forget to bring their tripod?
A general term would be cinéma vérité – literally ‘cinema truth’. It’s a documentary-style that stresses realism. Using a handheld camera is supposed to give the impression that what the viewer is seeing is ‘true’.
It’s one of those techniques that was cutting-edge at one time, but which has now passed over to cliché.
I wouldn’t say cinema verite is cliche. It’s not as popular as it was 10-15 years ago (when it was ubiquitous), but it’s not uncommon.
–Cliffy
Oy! Wish I could buy them all tripods. I work with a lot of newbie filmmakers who’d rather just shoot shaky cam. It’s an art to setup a camera on sticks, compose a shot, light it well, choreograph action and consider how a series of these shots will cut together later to form a scene that works. Many are just in it for the glory and don’t neccessarily have any talent. Not to mention the patience it takes to do it right.
I wouldn’t exactly call it cliché; it’s used quite a bit, still, although it’s not as cutting edge as it once was when, say, Medium Cool came out. The original Law & Order series used this almost exclusively, and the critics hated initially hated the show for it, but it does add a sense of immediacy to the viewing.
Still, rampant overuse of it is obnoxious. You see it a lot in cheap independant productions where they can’t afford a Steadicam setup and (for some reason) don’t want to use a tripod or mount. I guess it is supposed to look artistic, a la von Trier’s Dogme 95 movement :rolleyes: but instead it generally just looks cheap.
A good example of appropriate use I can think of off the top of my head is James Cameron’s use of it in The Abyss. While it was probably dictated by the claustrophobic sets and environment inside the rig, it does make the setting look more confined and the action more unpredictable. It’s noteworthy in that it’s unusual for Cameron, who otherwise almost exclusively uses Steadicam and fixed rail/crane mounts for camera movement.
Stranger
Ho boy, you must be talking about this film. 'Course, they weren’t willing to spring the money or time for a decent, coherent script, either. I can’t believe this thing actually made it to a film house. If it weren’t for the lovely Marguerite Moreau in frequently denuded state that two hours would have been a complete write-off.
Stranger
Add me to the list of annoyed. It just looks like a gimmick to cover up bad acting and directing.
But you know, the shaky camera stuff just isn’t complete without inexplicable jumping cutting like they used in the remake of Get Carter.
Other way around. Law and Order used tripods. It was Homicide: Life on the Streets that was filmed exclusively without them, so much so that when the actors from Homicide crossed over to L&O, they commented that it was odd to see cameras on tripods.
NYPD Blue used it a lot, though it was much more obtrusive – wild swings o the camera as opposed to Homicide’s just general shakiness.
In films, it’s been done much longer. Kubrick filmed the attack on the base in Dr. Strangelove with a handheld camera, and I’m sure the technique was used in avant garde films even earlier than that.
Er, no. I don’t know about your last statement, but the original L&O show used a lot (although possibly not exclusively) handheld and possibly Steadicam shots. They didn’t use it in the overmannered style of Homicide or NYPD Blue, but they definitely did use freehand camera work. The franchise shows, however, seem to use more conventional static shots, from what little I’ve seen of them.
Stranger