Why Shaky-Cam is Ruining Modern Action Movies
May 20, 2016 6:09 PM Subscribe
Captain America: Civil War is the latest in a long, long, long line of action movies that lean too hard on shaky-cam-heavy battles.... These films all owe an unpayable debt to none other than The Bourne Supremacy, the 2004 sequel to The Bourne Identity, directed by Paul Greengrass. Greengrass brought his jittery documentary-style filmmaking straight from socially conscious films like Bloody Sunday to two of the Bourne films, as well as Captain Phillips, United 93, and Green Zone. In the decade-plus since The Bourne Supremacy, so many filmmakers have adopted Greengrass’ style, less because it fits a story and more because it sufficiently caught audiences’ attention and studio heads felt it should be replicated ad hominem.
They probably meant "ad absurdum", which I can kind of see, but yeah. Si nescis, non loqueris.
posted by mhoye at 6:25 PM on May 20, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by mhoye at 6:25 PM on May 20, 2016 [8 favorites]
I remember finding the second Bourne movie unwatchable because of how cutty and shaky it was.
I like what this Tony Zhou video says (around 6:00) about cutting on a hit letting you get away without actually showing as much action.
posted by little onion at 6:26 PM on May 20, 2016 [8 favorites]
I like what this Tony Zhou video says (around 6:00) about cutting on a hit letting you get away without actually showing as much action.
posted by little onion at 6:26 PM on May 20, 2016 [8 favorites]
Shaky cam doesn't seem nearly as egregious to me as all the CGI in movies and the MF-ing orange and teal filtering that makes every scene look like sunset. So many blockbuster movies just look cheap and ugly to me now, no matter how many gazillions were spent on them. The whole damn thing looks so fake and weird, what does it matter if the camera jerks around during the action scenes? I already felt like I was watching a video game before the fighting started.
posted by Ursula Hitler at 6:27 PM on May 20, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by Ursula Hitler at 6:27 PM on May 20, 2016 [10 favorites]
Yeah, shouldn't it be 'ad infinitum' or 'ad nauseam'?
Does 'ad hominem' make sense in this context if you speak Latin?
posted by FallowKing at 6:27 PM on May 20, 2016 [9 favorites]
Does 'ad hominem' make sense in this context if you speak Latin?
posted by FallowKing at 6:27 PM on May 20, 2016 [9 favorites]
Obviously movies today need more bullet-time
posted by littlesq at 6:30 PM on May 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by littlesq at 6:30 PM on May 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
Yeah, now that you mention it I bet it was supposed to be "ad nauseam" before autocorrect got to it.
posted by mhoye at 6:30 PM on May 20, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by mhoye at 6:30 PM on May 20, 2016 [10 favorites]
Based on how I felt when I tried to see the Bourne movie in the theater, it should definitely be ad nauseum.
posted by nickmark at 6:30 PM on May 20, 2016 [21 favorites]
posted by nickmark at 6:30 PM on May 20, 2016 [21 favorites]
Dogme 95 undead.
posted by Jessica Savitch's Coke Spoon at 6:31 PM on May 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Jessica Savitch's Coke Spoon at 6:31 PM on May 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'd have blamed Gladiator for the shaky cam, not because I'm that aware of the history of film but because it's where something like this first bothered me.
posted by Wobbuffet at 6:36 PM on May 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Wobbuffet at 6:36 PM on May 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
Oh, hell yes. Also the need for virtually everything to happen at night/deep in the woods/inside buildings that haven't paid their electricity bill. Yeah, we get it... your CGI is cheap and you think you can disguise the fact by eliminating the details. Instead, it just pisses me off.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 6:36 PM on May 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by GhostintheMachine at 6:36 PM on May 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
I find shaky cam to be distracting, overused, and almost as annoying as writing a pseudo-intellectual "longform" article when one sentence would suffice.
posted by snofoam at 6:38 PM on May 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 6:38 PM on May 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
Eminent film scholar David Bordwell wrote a great stylistic analysis of "shakycam" in 2007, focusing on its incoherence in the Bourne movies, most particularly The Bourne Ultimatum.
At the end of the article are links to a few followup pieces, expanding his argument and including more shot & style analysis. Good stuff!
posted by theatro at 6:39 PM on May 20, 2016 [9 favorites]
At the end of the article are links to a few followup pieces, expanding his argument and including more shot & style analysis. Good stuff!
posted by theatro at 6:39 PM on May 20, 2016 [9 favorites]
The shaky cam in Captain America works, because these are people who are operating at or near superhuman levels. It's not being used to hide action, you can follow it played by slowly or seen twice.
But that's one of the rare uses I think works.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:40 PM on May 20, 2016 [5 favorites]
But that's one of the rare uses I think works.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:40 PM on May 20, 2016 [5 favorites]
The problem with "shakycam" is not a conceptual one. It's quite possible to use the camera to depict chaotic motion in an artful manner. The problem is that it's a little too easy to create a poor quality simulacrum when you want to juice something up that otherwise looks cheap, or boring, or if you simply don't have the equipment to create a dramatic but coherent movement with the camera. As a result, it crops up anywhere someone wants to try and fool you into being excited.
There's a similar issue right now with dutch angles and frankly I'm beginning to get a bit more irritated with that one than with shakycam.
posted by selfnoise at 6:42 PM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
There's a similar issue right now with dutch angles and frankly I'm beginning to get a bit more irritated with that one than with shakycam.
posted by selfnoise at 6:42 PM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
The shakycam in Civil War really bothered me. Some of the fight scenes were difficult to follow. The one with the policemen in the stairwell in particular was essentially unreadable.
posted by painquale at 6:45 PM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by painquale at 6:45 PM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
Also, I feel like this is just waiting for an irritated cinematographer to write a response titled "why extruded content churned out by underpaid millenials who just discovered a thesaurus is killing the internet".
posted by selfnoise at 6:45 PM on May 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by selfnoise at 6:45 PM on May 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
I liked their use in the Bourne movies because it was part of the overall look and vocabulary of those films. Don't like it in anything else.
posted by Peach at 6:46 PM on May 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Peach at 6:46 PM on May 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yeppers, it's not shaky cam per se but poor staging, choreography and editing. (but don't blame the editor, she's probably the one that's pulled a bunch of random shots to be at least releasable.)
posted by sammyo at 6:50 PM on May 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by sammyo at 6:50 PM on May 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
Greengrass got away with it in Bourne by complementing it with careful blocking and choreography. It feels chaotic and fast, but the geography is always clear.
Oddly, I thought Civil War was one of the better uses since. It wasn't used in every fight scene, more deployed to specific effect. And by keeping i.e. Widow centered (in the early market chase), it gave the action both immediacy and clarity.
posted by sixswitch at 6:57 PM on May 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
Oddly, I thought Civil War was one of the better uses since. It wasn't used in every fight scene, more deployed to specific effect. And by keeping i.e. Widow centered (in the early market chase), it gave the action both immediacy and clarity.
posted by sixswitch at 6:57 PM on May 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
So people who know how to use a particular paintbrush make art, people who don't make trash. Go figure.
posted by Mooski at 7:03 PM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Mooski at 7:03 PM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
I was first exposed to shaky cam in the first Bourne movie. It was the first time that I encountered cinematography that matched my experiences of the confusion, speed, and lethality of fighting. At the time I thought it was a nice and welcome departure from the stylized Woo/Matrix depictions of fighting.
I am slightly put off by the insistence that super powered beings would fight with their fists at all. The Avengers scene with the running across the tarmac? The armored fellow is freaking supersonic. With lasers and missiles that kill tanks. How would some winged running dude and his ploddingly slow friends pose any threat at all to him? The red lady can determine the very waft and weft of reality. She can choose to have no enemies and reality will enforce her diktat.
Obviously they must all duke it out.
In summary: Get of my lawn!
posted by pdoege at 7:19 PM on May 20, 2016 [10 favorites]
I am slightly put off by the insistence that super powered beings would fight with their fists at all. The Avengers scene with the running across the tarmac? The armored fellow is freaking supersonic. With lasers and missiles that kill tanks. How would some winged running dude and his ploddingly slow friends pose any threat at all to him? The red lady can determine the very waft and weft of reality. She can choose to have no enemies and reality will enforce her diktat.
Obviously they must all duke it out.
In summary: Get of my lawn!
posted by pdoege at 7:19 PM on May 20, 2016 [10 favorites]
Shaky cam is a lazy director's way of making fight scenes without having to worry too much about choreography. Who can tell if it's realistic if the damn camera is jerking around the whole time.
posted by Mental Wimp at 7:21 PM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Mental Wimp at 7:21 PM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
With the acclaim that Miller and Cuaron got for the way their scenes were cut, you'd think that people would put more techniques in the kit.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 7:23 PM on May 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by the man of twists and turns at 7:23 PM on May 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
Shakycam hides when the film production doesn't have the budget for long periods spent on fight choreography and rehearsal with the lead actors.
It either hides the fact that no, Matt Damon isn't a great athlete, or no, Matt Damon didn't put in the work, or, no, that ain't Matt Damon, it's a stunt man.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 7:33 PM on May 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
It either hides the fact that no, Matt Damon isn't a great athlete, or no, Matt Damon didn't put in the work, or, no, that ain't Matt Damon, it's a stunt man.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 7:33 PM on May 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
The thing about Shakeycam is that it's not supposed to be obviously shakey. In the best utilizations, it's a subtle, almost imperceptible thing, the natural result of a hand-held camera which works to bring the viewer into the scene.
The problem is that, like a lot of artistic techniques, very few practitioners actually have the temperment to trust naturalistic subtlety. Instead, they take the "turn it up to 11" approach, to make sure the audience gets it, like a hammer to the head.
It's become hackish shorthand for shouting at the audience "You're in the middle of the action!!!"
posted by Thorzdad at 7:33 PM on May 20, 2016 [5 favorites]
The problem is that, like a lot of artistic techniques, very few practitioners actually have the temperment to trust naturalistic subtlety. Instead, they take the "turn it up to 11" approach, to make sure the audience gets it, like a hammer to the head.
It's become hackish shorthand for shouting at the audience "You're in the middle of the action!!!"
posted by Thorzdad at 7:33 PM on May 20, 2016 [5 favorites]
Shaky cam used to be called Sovieting and it existed long before Greenglass. Leslie Dektor was a commercial director who used the style back in the 80s.
posted by Ideefixe at 7:55 PM on May 20, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by Ideefixe at 7:55 PM on May 20, 2016 [8 favorites]
Who can tell if it's realistic if the damn camera is jerking around the whole time.
I suspect the roots of this go back to Speed. I watched it again a couple of years ago and I am not sure if there is any scene longer than 30 frames where the camera is not moving. It is an attempt to make even scenes of someone driving a bus look dramatic, much like technothrillers of the same early nineties era figured even typing could be rendered gripping if the camera orbited the typist fast enough.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 7:55 PM on May 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
I suspect the roots of this go back to Speed. I watched it again a couple of years ago and I am not sure if there is any scene longer than 30 frames where the camera is not moving. It is an attempt to make even scenes of someone driving a bus look dramatic, much like technothrillers of the same early nineties era figured even typing could be rendered gripping if the camera orbited the typist fast enough.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 7:55 PM on May 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
I am slightly put off by the insistence that super powered beings would fight with their fists at all. The Avengers scene with the running across the tarmac? The armored fellow is freaking supersonic. With lasers and missiles that kill tanks. How would some winged running dude and his ploddingly slow friends pose any threat at all to him?
That part of the scene would indeed be silly, except these are all people who would rather not hurt each other. So yeah, Tony's gonna close to grappling distance rather than shoot a tank-busting missile at them.
posted by straight at 8:15 PM on May 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
That part of the scene would indeed be silly, except these are all people who would rather not hurt each other. So yeah, Tony's gonna close to grappling distance rather than shoot a tank-busting missile at them.
posted by straight at 8:15 PM on May 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
Shakycam allows the filmmakers to avoid having to expend as much time getting an expert fight choreographer to block out a scene. This no doubt reduces production time especially with high priced talent.
If it can be quickly shot and most of the technical flaws hidden with editing and CGI you can generate a ton of dramatic tension in a fairly simple scene in a way that traditional fight choreography struggles with.
Of course it got abused as tons of filmmakers started using it to avoid weakness in their action scenes.
It has basically become yet another hallmark of bad filmmaking just like excessive lens flare and super saturated orange and teal color palettes.
posted by vuron at 8:34 PM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
If it can be quickly shot and most of the technical flaws hidden with editing and CGI you can generate a ton of dramatic tension in a fairly simple scene in a way that traditional fight choreography struggles with.
Of course it got abused as tons of filmmakers started using it to avoid weakness in their action scenes.
It has basically become yet another hallmark of bad filmmaking just like excessive lens flare and super saturated orange and teal color palettes.
posted by vuron at 8:34 PM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bourne? Speed? Eighties? I remember seeing this in the sixties and even as a kid thinking, "Oh, I guess this is to make it more exciting and... uh, kinetic." If I remember right it was referred to as hand-held, was more "experimental" than commercial, and had all of the motion but not quite as fast cutting as today.
posted by Rich Smorgasbord at 8:35 PM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Rich Smorgasbord at 8:35 PM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
Check out the hunting scene from Tom Jones (1963). Admittedly that's a lower order of magnitude, but it was jarring and newsy back then.
posted by Rich Smorgasbord at 9:00 PM on May 20, 2016
posted by Rich Smorgasbord at 9:00 PM on May 20, 2016
It's always fun to read articles written by people who don't know the first thing about what they're writing about!
posted by Docrailgun at 9:01 PM on May 20, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by Docrailgun at 9:01 PM on May 20, 2016 [8 favorites]
I often tell my students that any perceptual issues they are having with my teaching style come down to their inability to appreciate my shakycam technique.
posted by nfalkner at 9:10 PM on May 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by nfalkner at 9:10 PM on May 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
IIRC, The Raid 2 had incredibly tasteful use of shakycam in the prison yard fight scene. One of my favorite choreographed fights ever.
posted by gucci mane at 9:16 PM on May 20, 2016
posted by gucci mane at 9:16 PM on May 20, 2016
I don't like shaky action but it at least seems to be on the way out. It's a trend. It'll pass. And the shakiness in CIVIL WAR didn't bother me at all.
posted by brundlefly at 9:25 PM on May 20, 2016
posted by brundlefly at 9:25 PM on May 20, 2016
Gladiator was definitely the first film I ever really noticed this in.
posted by Palindromedary at 10:47 PM on May 20, 2016
posted by Palindromedary at 10:47 PM on May 20, 2016
I am slightly put off by the insistence that super powered beings would fight with their fists at all. The Avengers scene with the running across the tarmac? The armored fellow is freaking supersonic. With lasers and missiles that kill tanks. How would some winged running dude and his ploddingly slow friends pose any threat at all to him? The red lady can determine the very waft and weft of reality. She can choose to have no enemies and reality will enforce her diktat.
Tony explicitly says that they are trying not to hurt anybody, and when somebody does actually get hurt everyone is devastated by it. They are trying to stop each other, not kill each other. (Also, what you're saying about "The red lady" is wholly unsupported by the films. The comic book version of the Scarlet Witch is not the same as the film version, and thank god for that because there are not a lot of human stories you can tell in a world that has a character who can dynamically unmake and remake reality.)
posted by IAmUnaware at 11:02 PM on May 20, 2016 [5 favorites]
Tony explicitly says that they are trying not to hurt anybody, and when somebody does actually get hurt everyone is devastated by it. They are trying to stop each other, not kill each other. (Also, what you're saying about "The red lady" is wholly unsupported by the films. The comic book version of the Scarlet Witch is not the same as the film version, and thank god for that because there are not a lot of human stories you can tell in a world that has a character who can dynamically unmake and remake reality.)
posted by IAmUnaware at 11:02 PM on May 20, 2016 [5 favorites]
Considering the number of stunt players and coordinators on this film, I'd say that there was no money saved by the use of shaky cam.
Josh Spiegel is clueless about how movies are actually made. As a critic, he's slightly above a Disqus commenter.
posted by Ideefixe at 11:51 PM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
Josh Spiegel is clueless about how movies are actually made. As a critic, he's slightly above a Disqus commenter.
posted by Ideefixe at 11:51 PM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
Barry Lyndon is mostly shot with painterly composition and what camera movement there is is mostly fairly fluid. But there's a scene where the protagonist is in a fistfight which is mainly shot in somewhat shaky off-the-shoulder style. It's an effective use of the technique if less extreme than what Greengrass et al do.
Oliver Stone's Any Given Sunday is a ludicrous film by any standard but uses shakycam effectively in the on-field sequences.
IIRC Run Lola Run used occasional shaky shots quite well.
posted by the duck by the oboe at 12:56 AM on May 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Oliver Stone's Any Given Sunday is a ludicrous film by any standard but uses shakycam effectively in the on-field sequences.
IIRC Run Lola Run used occasional shaky shots quite well.
posted by the duck by the oboe at 12:56 AM on May 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
I liked their use in the Bourne movies because it was part of the overall look and vocabulary of those films. Don't like it in anything else.
I wouldn't go as far as not liking it in any other movie, but it -- along with bad CGI -- does feel overused. It is an effective technique when used right. In the Bourne movies, there are few action scenes where I had any confusion about what was happening at all, but in some other movies the action scenes are just a hot wet mess of herky jerky shots, often in low light for added confusion.
posted by Dip Flash at 1:25 AM on May 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
I wouldn't go as far as not liking it in any other movie, but it -- along with bad CGI -- does feel overused. It is an effective technique when used right. In the Bourne movies, there are few action scenes where I had any confusion about what was happening at all, but in some other movies the action scenes are just a hot wet mess of herky jerky shots, often in low light for added confusion.
posted by Dip Flash at 1:25 AM on May 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
I would say the trend for big budget shaky am started with Saving Private Ryan, where Spielberg was trying to recreate a war documentary feel.
posted by cardboard at 3:47 AM on May 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by cardboard at 3:47 AM on May 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
WHY SHAKY CAM IS RUINING MODERN MOVIES
Risk-averse, avaricious, tone-deaf Hollywood choices (and sequelitis and too many superheroes) are ruining modern movies.
posted by newdaddy at 4:29 AM on May 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
Risk-averse, avaricious, tone-deaf Hollywood choices (and sequelitis and too many superheroes) are ruining modern movies.
posted by newdaddy at 4:29 AM on May 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
it's ruining television too!
posted by skepticallypleased at 5:14 AM on May 21, 2016
posted by skepticallypleased at 5:14 AM on May 21, 2016
Tony explicitly says that they are trying not to hurt anybody, and when somebody does actually get hurt everyone is devastated by it. They are trying to stop each other, not kill each other.
And that whole scene actually works out very well as different characters play against each other. Ant-Man and Spider-Man both are wild cards that really change how you think that battle will go.
posted by Fleebnork at 5:43 AM on May 21, 2016
And that whole scene actually works out very well as different characters play against each other. Ant-Man and Spider-Man both are wild cards that really change how you think that battle will go.
posted by Fleebnork at 5:43 AM on May 21, 2016
I do hate (most) shaky-cam but it does seem to be less common than it was five years ago.
posted by octothorpe at 5:49 AM on May 21, 2016
posted by octothorpe at 5:49 AM on May 21, 2016
Tony explicitly says that they are trying not to hurt anybody
And it's a game of chicken, with Cap's trying to take advantage of "tony doesn't want hurt." Naturally things get out of hand.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:08 AM on May 21, 2016
And it's a game of chicken, with Cap's trying to take advantage of "tony doesn't want hurt." Naturally things get out of hand.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:08 AM on May 21, 2016
Posers. Evil Dead or GTFO.
posted by Etrigan at 6:08 AM on May 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Etrigan at 6:08 AM on May 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
The shaky cam in Captain America works, because these are people who are operating at or near superhuman levels. It's not being used to hide action, you can follow it played by slowly or seen twice.
Wow, I agree with you on the facts but not the takeaway. If you have to watch a scene multiple times or in slo-mo to understand what actually occurred (and I'm not talking about subtext or theme, I mean literally the facts of the scene), then the filmmakers have utterly failed. Particularly if we're talking about a pop-culture action flick.
Fury Road is only the latest example of movies that show what action is supposed to be for: It needs to be clear, have an internal logic, and if you're doing it really right, it should help tell the story, propel the narrative or reveal something about the characters. Fury Road is a master class in this. Civil War occasionally bumps up against it, but often the action is confusing on first view, and that's a huge strike against an otherwise excellent event movie.
The shaky cam thing is really just a symptom. Greengrass introduced this whole 15-cuts-a-second-from-opposing-angles direction style, and visually to me it feels like they don't know what they're doing and think fast + chaotic = actiony. Show me something with a pulse, don't just scream at me and call it rock 'n' roll.
posted by middleclasstool at 6:11 AM on May 21, 2016 [7 favorites]
Wow, I agree with you on the facts but not the takeaway. If you have to watch a scene multiple times or in slo-mo to understand what actually occurred (and I'm not talking about subtext or theme, I mean literally the facts of the scene), then the filmmakers have utterly failed. Particularly if we're talking about a pop-culture action flick.
Fury Road is only the latest example of movies that show what action is supposed to be for: It needs to be clear, have an internal logic, and if you're doing it really right, it should help tell the story, propel the narrative or reveal something about the characters. Fury Road is a master class in this. Civil War occasionally bumps up against it, but often the action is confusing on first view, and that's a huge strike against an otherwise excellent event movie.
The shaky cam thing is really just a symptom. Greengrass introduced this whole 15-cuts-a-second-from-opposing-angles direction style, and visually to me it feels like they don't know what they're doing and think fast + chaotic = actiony. Show me something with a pulse, don't just scream at me and call it rock 'n' roll.
posted by middleclasstool at 6:11 AM on May 21, 2016 [7 favorites]
I think the problem is less the shaky cam and more that the battles and destruction have to be so over-the-top that even Michael Bay is going to say, "Seriously guys, stop it," at some point. I know that we have superhero movies scheduled from now until eternity, but they all just get bigger and bigger and either you have to CGI the whole thing so much that it's just a literal cartoon, or you have to do a tremendous amount of fast cutting and shaky camera work to cover up the fact that you're not actually destroying entire city blocks, cities, or planets, and it flattens everything out quite a bit.
posted by xingcat at 6:43 AM on May 21, 2016
posted by xingcat at 6:43 AM on May 21, 2016
I also have a problem with the premise that shakycam "began" with the Bourne movies, but I will say that SOMETHING different happened with the technique in those movies. The first Bourne movie was the first movie I can recall that made me motion sick. Other shakycam before that didn't do it, so there must be something to the fact of the Bourne series being this dividing line.
posted by chainsofreedom at 7:06 AM on May 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by chainsofreedom at 7:06 AM on May 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
Honestly, I didn't even notice that Civil War used shakycam, or have any trouble following the action.
The only time it bothers me is in something like Blair Witch Project or Cloverfield, where the entire movie heaves around until it makes me heave too.
posted by Foosnark at 8:05 AM on May 21, 2016
The only time it bothers me is in something like Blair Witch Project or Cloverfield, where the entire movie heaves around until it makes me heave too.
posted by Foosnark at 8:05 AM on May 21, 2016
Natasha Romanov hated pierogies, but even more than that she hated lies (and also shaky cam).
posted by klausman at 8:29 AM on May 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by klausman at 8:29 AM on May 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
Wow, I agree with you on the facts but not the takeaway. If you have to watch a scene multiple times or in slo-mo to understand what actually occurred (and I'm not talking about subtext or theme, I mean literally the facts of the scene), then the filmmakers have utterly failed. Particularly if we're talking about a pop-culture action flick.
It's pretty clear that X and Y are fighting and that X won by doing certain moves. Its the detail that are a blur and become clearer on a second viewing.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:45 AM on May 21, 2016
It's pretty clear that X and Y are fighting and that X won by doing certain moves. Its the detail that are a blur and become clearer on a second viewing.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:45 AM on May 21, 2016
I hope they master the art of showing entire cities being destroyed in brawls because it'll make way for Dragonball Z movie that's actually good.
posted by gucci mane at 8:46 AM on May 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by gucci mane at 8:46 AM on May 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
Shaky cam and ALL THE FAST JUMP CUTS WOO CHAOS JUMP CUT SO MUCH ACTION kind of editing are tired, Hollywood. Fury Road is the retro-wave of the future.
I hope. Please please please.
posted by rmd1023 at 8:49 AM on May 21, 2016
I hope. Please please please.
posted by rmd1023 at 8:49 AM on May 21, 2016
The Blair Witch Project was one of the strongest and most annoying users of nausea-cam. I don't remember Speed using it in particular.
posted by musofire at 8:51 AM on May 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by musofire at 8:51 AM on May 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
The Wikipedia article on shaky cam specifically says that the Bourne movies used it to a new level of intensity along with the fast editing / quick cuts technique that causes a lot of disorientation in the middle of the action
posted by aydeejones at 9:01 AM on May 21, 2016
posted by aydeejones at 9:01 AM on May 21, 2016
"Chaos Cinema", a video essay in 2011 (part 1 - part 2 - response) said the same thing but with a lot more generational whining.
Generations that never experienced life without the Internet are increasingly cocooned in a fractured reality of Internet clips, smart phone updates, and social media messages in which the data stream never lets up. "Can it be possible that those young people born after the advent of 8-bit video games experience everything faster, harder, more intensely and more vaguely than the generations that came before it, on multiple levels, in both ecstatic and numbed-down ways?" asked Ian Grey in "The Art of Chaos Cinema." "Whatever the explanation, classical cinema is not and never again will be their answer. It doesn't match the experience of a generation of Facebookers, Tweeters and Call of Duty players. It just doesn’t. No amount of hectoring will change that." - as quoted in "WHY MOST MODERN ACTION FILMS ARE TERRIBLE"
The article in the OP is not saying a whole lot, in comparison, but at least it isn't whining.
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 9:50 AM on May 21, 2016
Generations that never experienced life without the Internet are increasingly cocooned in a fractured reality of Internet clips, smart phone updates, and social media messages in which the data stream never lets up. "Can it be possible that those young people born after the advent of 8-bit video games experience everything faster, harder, more intensely and more vaguely than the generations that came before it, on multiple levels, in both ecstatic and numbed-down ways?" asked Ian Grey in "The Art of Chaos Cinema." "Whatever the explanation, classical cinema is not and never again will be their answer. It doesn't match the experience of a generation of Facebookers, Tweeters and Call of Duty players. It just doesn’t. No amount of hectoring will change that." - as quoted in "WHY MOST MODERN ACTION FILMS ARE TERRIBLE"
The article in the OP is not saying a whole lot, in comparison, but at least it isn't whining.
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 9:50 AM on May 21, 2016
letting you get away without actually showing as much action.
I guess it's a middle age thing but I'm getting just tired of the action. Period. Particularly when the outcome is bloody obvious (ie: yes, because we're very near the end of the movie, the good guy will win). I'm honestly at the point where the vast majority of so-called action is boring to me. So I sometimes fantasize, what if a new generation of filmmakers (and audiences) suddenly, inexplicably, embraced Jean Luc Godard's action aesthetic -- what if, rather than go all gratuitous with violence, films started going the other way (rather how older movies used to dissolve from a couple kissing to the next day or whatever, skipping the f***ing altogether).
So you might have two tough guys square off, stake their attack poses ... and then --
INSERT TITLE CARD: "A few minutes later"
The room is now a mess, one of them's dead in a heap, the other's a little bruised. Now on with the actual f***ing story.
posted by philip-random at 10:40 AM on May 21, 2016 [12 favorites]
I guess it's a middle age thing but I'm getting just tired of the action. Period. Particularly when the outcome is bloody obvious (ie: yes, because we're very near the end of the movie, the good guy will win). I'm honestly at the point where the vast majority of so-called action is boring to me. So I sometimes fantasize, what if a new generation of filmmakers (and audiences) suddenly, inexplicably, embraced Jean Luc Godard's action aesthetic -- what if, rather than go all gratuitous with violence, films started going the other way (rather how older movies used to dissolve from a couple kissing to the next day or whatever, skipping the f***ing altogether).
So you might have two tough guys square off, stake their attack poses ... and then --
INSERT TITLE CARD: "A few minutes later"
The room is now a mess, one of them's dead in a heap, the other's a little bruised. Now on with the actual f***ing story.
posted by philip-random at 10:40 AM on May 21, 2016 [12 favorites]
Scorsese skipped a whole fight in Raging Bull. You see all the prep leading up to it but he cuts away just as it starts.
posted by octothorpe at 10:52 AM on May 21, 2016
posted by octothorpe at 10:52 AM on May 21, 2016
It's pretty clear that X and Y are fighting and that X won by doing certain moves. Its the detail that are a blur and become clearer on a second viewing.
I mean, I'm there to watch the action. That's a big part of why they made the movie. That's literally the product they're selling. If someone said of my software "it's super confusing at first, but you'll understand how to use it after you bang your head against it a couple of times" no one would hire me.
posted by middleclasstool at 10:52 AM on May 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
I mean, I'm there to watch the action. That's a big part of why they made the movie. That's literally the product they're selling. If someone said of my software "it's super confusing at first, but you'll understand how to use it after you bang your head against it a couple of times" no one would hire me.
posted by middleclasstool at 10:52 AM on May 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well I'm getting tired of these sheeple who meekly go to movies they know they won't like just because lots of other people are doing it and then complain that the movie delivers exactly what was advertised and exactly what most of the audience wanted.
Have the courage to do what you actually enjoy. Stay home and read a good book. I refuse to believe that you can't find entertainment you like. I don't have enough hours in the day to watch, read, play, or listen to a fraction of the stuff I'm pretty sure I'll love. Who has time to watch things they hate?
posted by straight at 10:54 AM on May 21, 2016
Have the courage to do what you actually enjoy. Stay home and read a good book. I refuse to believe that you can't find entertainment you like. I don't have enough hours in the day to watch, read, play, or listen to a fraction of the stuff I'm pretty sure I'll love. Who has time to watch things they hate?
posted by straight at 10:54 AM on May 21, 2016
Shaky-cam is a good way to make an actor who can't really throw a believable punch look like a badass.
Chris Evans and Scarlett Johansson look like they really nail the fight choreography so they'd really be better off not using it.
I mean, basically the whole reason to watch some low-budget action movies with their terrible acting and convoluted plots is to see the wide shots of a bunch of really good martial artists do a bunch of crazy stunts and stunt fighting. It's a very specific art-form but those guys are REALLY good at it and the big-budget movies that put the same effort into it inevitably get praised for their action/fight scenes.
posted by VTX at 12:37 PM on May 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
Chris Evans and Scarlett Johansson look like they really nail the fight choreography so they'd really be better off not using it.
I mean, basically the whole reason to watch some low-budget action movies with their terrible acting and convoluted plots is to see the wide shots of a bunch of really good martial artists do a bunch of crazy stunts and stunt fighting. It's a very specific art-form but those guys are REALLY good at it and the big-budget movies that put the same effort into it inevitably get praised for their action/fight scenes.
posted by VTX at 12:37 PM on May 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
So you might have two tough guys square off, stake their attack poses ... and then --
INSERT TITLE CARD: "A few minutes later"
The room is now a mess, one of them's dead in a heap, the other's a little bruised. Now on with the actual f***ing story.
If you can do that in your story then you shouldn't be writing an action movie in the first place. I'll leave a longer answer on how to do things well to John Rogers
posted by Francis at 1:01 PM on May 21, 2016
INSERT TITLE CARD: "A few minutes later"
The room is now a mess, one of them's dead in a heap, the other's a little bruised. Now on with the actual f***ing story.
If you can do that in your story then you shouldn't be writing an action movie in the first place. I'll leave a longer answer on how to do things well to John Rogers
posted by Francis at 1:01 PM on May 21, 2016
I've always thought that the extreme levels of Shaky Cam found in the worst offenders like the Bourne movies are the cinematic version of Brockian Ultra Cricket:
Rule Three: Put your team and the opposing team in a large field and build a high wall round them.
The reason for this is that, though the game is a major spectator sport, the frustration experienced by the audience at not actually being able to see what's going on leads them to imagine that it's a lot more exciting than it actually is. A crowd that has just watched a rather humdrum game experiences far less life-affirmation than a crowd that believes it has just missed the most dramatic event in sporting history.
posted by Aznable at 3:09 PM on May 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Rule Three: Put your team and the opposing team in a large field and build a high wall round them.
The reason for this is that, though the game is a major spectator sport, the frustration experienced by the audience at not actually being able to see what's going on leads them to imagine that it's a lot more exciting than it actually is. A crowd that has just watched a rather humdrum game experiences far less life-affirmation than a crowd that believes it has just missed the most dramatic event in sporting history.
posted by Aznable at 3:09 PM on May 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
If you can do that in your story then you shouldn't be writing an action movie in the first place.
Maybe but you'd make me happy. I'd just as soon not have to watch 90% of fight scenes in most modern films. I like the Marvel films just fine but my eyes tend to glaze over during the interminable punching and kicking scenes. For as much as they hold my attention, they could just edit in a fight scene from the previous film and I might not notice.
posted by octothorpe at 3:47 PM on May 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Maybe but you'd make me happy. I'd just as soon not have to watch 90% of fight scenes in most modern films. I like the Marvel films just fine but my eyes tend to glaze over during the interminable punching and kicking scenes. For as much as they hold my attention, they could just edit in a fight scene from the previous film and I might not notice.
posted by octothorpe at 3:47 PM on May 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Shakycam is bad enough in fight scenes. But why, dear Hollywood, do you feel the need to keep moving the camera when people are talking? I'm not talking about slow pans (which can look awesome) but jittery, small-scale movement all the frigging time!
posted by Triplanetary at 4:21 PM on May 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Triplanetary at 4:21 PM on May 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm trying to kickstart a remake of Claire's Knee shot entirely in shakey-cam/bullet-time/trunk-shot/teal-burnt-orange. It's for, y'know, the kids.
posted by Chitownfats at 4:27 PM on May 21, 2016
posted by Chitownfats at 4:27 PM on May 21, 2016
So you might have two tough guys square off, stake their attack poses ... and then --
INSERT TITLE CARD: "A few minutes later"
The room is now a mess, one of them's dead in a heap, the other's a little bruised. Now on with the actual f***ing story.
Happens frequently in Person of Interest, which is an amazing show, and available on Netflix...
posted by Wetterschneider at 4:44 PM on May 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
INSERT TITLE CARD: "A few minutes later"
The room is now a mess, one of them's dead in a heap, the other's a little bruised. Now on with the actual f***ing story.
Happens frequently in Person of Interest, which is an amazing show, and available on Netflix...
posted by Wetterschneider at 4:44 PM on May 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
I mean, I'm there to watch the action. That's a big part of why they made the movie. That's literally the product they're selling. If someone said of my software "it's super confusing at first, but you'll understand how to use it after you bang your head against it a couple of times" no one would hire me.
Well, it's good that writing software and filming/editing a movie aren't similar. And considering that movie has literally made a billion dollars at after being open a month, they're clearly doing something very right.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:45 PM on May 21, 2016
Well, it's good that writing software and filming/editing a movie aren't similar. And considering that movie has literally made a billion dollars at after being open a month, they're clearly doing something very right.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:45 PM on May 21, 2016
Oh, we're already at the "it made money, therefore it's good" stage of the discussion?
posted by Etrigan at 4:46 PM on May 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Etrigan at 4:46 PM on May 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
Oh, we're already at the "it made money, therefore it's good" stage of the discussion?
No, we're at the stage of discussion where we're following a statement to its logical conclusion.
Middleclass tool claimed that action is "a big part of why they made the movie. That's literally the product they're selling." By that rationale, since the movie has made a billion dollars and will continue to make a bit more, they're clearing doing action pretty well.
Mind you, I'd agree that the action does get a bit blurry at times and is hard to follow what every single move is, but it totally works. I say that having seen the movie a second time and being able to focus on the fights. Shaky cam isn't being used to much, if anything, the action has clearly defined movements and actions that cumulate into consequences, just as Winter Soldier did. The Russos know their stuff.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:53 PM on May 21, 2016
No, we're at the stage of discussion where we're following a statement to its logical conclusion.
Middleclass tool claimed that action is "a big part of why they made the movie. That's literally the product they're selling." By that rationale, since the movie has made a billion dollars and will continue to make a bit more, they're clearing doing action pretty well.
Mind you, I'd agree that the action does get a bit blurry at times and is hard to follow what every single move is, but it totally works. I say that having seen the movie a second time and being able to focus on the fights. Shaky cam isn't being used to much, if anything, the action has clearly defined movements and actions that cumulate into consequences, just as Winter Soldier did. The Russos know their stuff.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:53 PM on May 21, 2016
By that rationale, since the movie has made a billion dollars and will continue to make a bit more, they're clearing doing action pretty well.
It means they made a good movie that turned out to be popular. Which they did. It's great.
That doesn't mean that they did everything right or that the shaky cam direction was therefore the best way to go. You yourself concede that this movie, a visual storytelling medium, occasionally does a bad job of conveying the story visually, but since it made a ton of money and I know that the good guys won the fight, that must mean they were right to make that choice. And that's weirdly reductive.
posted by middleclasstool at 5:21 PM on May 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
It means they made a good movie that turned out to be popular. Which they did. It's great.
That doesn't mean that they did everything right or that the shaky cam direction was therefore the best way to go. You yourself concede that this movie, a visual storytelling medium, occasionally does a bad job of conveying the story visually, but since it made a ton of money and I know that the good guys won the fight, that must mean they were right to make that choice. And that's weirdly reductive.
posted by middleclasstool at 5:21 PM on May 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
I also have a problem with the premise that shakycam "began" with the Bourne movies, but I will say that SOMETHING different happened with the technique in those movies.
Yeah, I definitely remember thinking of ER being the main mainstream-culture push for shaky camerawork.
posted by lazuli at 9:05 PM on May 21, 2016
Yeah, I definitely remember thinking of ER being the main mainstream-culture push for shaky camerawork.
posted by lazuli at 9:05 PM on May 21, 2016
I worked at a movie theater when "Breaking the Waves" came out in 1996, and I remember having to give refunds to more than one audience member who couldn't handle the shakiness.
posted by The corpse in the library at 9:09 PM on May 21, 2016
posted by The corpse in the library at 9:09 PM on May 21, 2016
I say that having seen the movie a second time and being able to focus on the fights.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:53 PM on May 21 [+]
Look, I'm glad that you're happy with the movie, and have seen it twice. For some (most?) of us going to see one of these superhero smash-ups isn't something that we're going to devote our lives to (yes I'm exaggerating here). I paid to see the movie once, and that's likely how many times I'll see it. Sure, if one of Marvel movies happens to show up on TV on some non-premium channel when I've got some time to kill I may watch it, or more likely part of it, but there is no way I'm going to pay for a second or third ticket to see it on the big screen and then buy the DVD and freeze fame the video during every cut in every fight scene. I truly and honestly don't care that much about the movie. It's supposed to be a big, fun spectacle, and while a lot of it qualifies as exactly that, the fight scenes don't work for me, just as they don't work for a lot of people posting here.
I posted about my reaction to shaky cams and fast cutting in the Captain America thread, and what it came down to is that I was totally and completely bored, so bored I had to resort to mental games to keep my attention on the screen. And before anybody starts with the argument that "it's a superhero film, you should know what to expect" or wants to trot out the "you're not the intended audience" let me say I've more than proven my comic book-geek credentials on MeFi. I like the characters, the genre, and the whole shebang. I just don't believe that in order to enjoy an action sequence I have to see a movie multiple times. Or that there is only one way to show action.
Look, I get it. A good or a great film can reward the watcher during multiple viewings. Some of the best ones have all sorts of little things that aren't obvious the first time they're screened. I don't believe that a major action set-piece is something that should require multiple viewings just to comprehend or even enjoy. Sure, with a great fight scene (or any action scene) there can be nuances that are better picked up on the second or fifth viewing, but the basic flow of the action and the overall pace shouldn't be in that category.
It seems that you've got a lot invested in liking this movie and wanting to defend it. Great. I'm glad you found a piece of entertainment you enjoy. I happy the movie worked for you. It's not nice to be disappointed or to have wasted your money seeing stuff that makes you miserable. All I and some of the other commentators are saying is that for us, there were parts of the movie that didn't work, and those parts were, by large, the fight scenes. And they didn't work because of the technical way they were put together. What's not very much shaky cam for you is too much shaky cam (or fast cutting or bad CGI, etc.) for us. Maybe it's because we're old, or maybe it's because we were brought up on a different style of film making. Maybe it's just personal taste. I just know that personally, as much as I'll keep going to see big budget action movies, I'll keep hoping that I come across some that are put together in a way I enjoy and that have a plot or concept that interests me. It would be nice to have both aspects come together.
posted by sardonyx at 9:34 PM on May 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:53 PM on May 21 [+]
Look, I'm glad that you're happy with the movie, and have seen it twice. For some (most?) of us going to see one of these superhero smash-ups isn't something that we're going to devote our lives to (yes I'm exaggerating here). I paid to see the movie once, and that's likely how many times I'll see it. Sure, if one of Marvel movies happens to show up on TV on some non-premium channel when I've got some time to kill I may watch it, or more likely part of it, but there is no way I'm going to pay for a second or third ticket to see it on the big screen and then buy the DVD and freeze fame the video during every cut in every fight scene. I truly and honestly don't care that much about the movie. It's supposed to be a big, fun spectacle, and while a lot of it qualifies as exactly that, the fight scenes don't work for me, just as they don't work for a lot of people posting here.
I posted about my reaction to shaky cams and fast cutting in the Captain America thread, and what it came down to is that I was totally and completely bored, so bored I had to resort to mental games to keep my attention on the screen. And before anybody starts with the argument that "it's a superhero film, you should know what to expect" or wants to trot out the "you're not the intended audience" let me say I've more than proven my comic book-geek credentials on MeFi. I like the characters, the genre, and the whole shebang. I just don't believe that in order to enjoy an action sequence I have to see a movie multiple times. Or that there is only one way to show action.
Look, I get it. A good or a great film can reward the watcher during multiple viewings. Some of the best ones have all sorts of little things that aren't obvious the first time they're screened. I don't believe that a major action set-piece is something that should require multiple viewings just to comprehend or even enjoy. Sure, with a great fight scene (or any action scene) there can be nuances that are better picked up on the second or fifth viewing, but the basic flow of the action and the overall pace shouldn't be in that category.
It seems that you've got a lot invested in liking this movie and wanting to defend it. Great. I'm glad you found a piece of entertainment you enjoy. I happy the movie worked for you. It's not nice to be disappointed or to have wasted your money seeing stuff that makes you miserable. All I and some of the other commentators are saying is that for us, there were parts of the movie that didn't work, and those parts were, by large, the fight scenes. And they didn't work because of the technical way they were put together. What's not very much shaky cam for you is too much shaky cam (or fast cutting or bad CGI, etc.) for us. Maybe it's because we're old, or maybe it's because we were brought up on a different style of film making. Maybe it's just personal taste. I just know that personally, as much as I'll keep going to see big budget action movies, I'll keep hoping that I come across some that are put together in a way I enjoy and that have a plot or concept that interests me. It would be nice to have both aspects come together.
posted by sardonyx at 9:34 PM on May 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
I dunno... I would have said superheroes are ruining modern action movies.
posted by 2N2222 at 10:53 PM on May 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by 2N2222 at 10:53 PM on May 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
For as much as they hold my attention, they could just edit in a fight scene from the previous film and I might not notice.
Not just action, I recall an interview with Sir Alec Guinness where he mentioned he realized during a performance of Macbeth that he was in the middle of a soliloquy from Hamlet and no one, not the experts or critics noticed.
posted by sammyo at 6:28 AM on May 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
Not just action, I recall an interview with Sir Alec Guinness where he mentioned he realized during a performance of Macbeth that he was in the middle of a soliloquy from Hamlet and no one, not the experts or critics noticed.
posted by sammyo at 6:28 AM on May 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
The room is now a mess, one of them's dead in a heap, the other's a little bruised. Now on with the actual f***ing story.
Happens frequently in Person of Interest, which is an amazing show, and available on Netflix...
I think they use that a lot because Jim Caviezel isn't a believable action hero. He isn't athletic enough and can't throw a believable punch. You'll also note that they cut pretty much any time a punch lands.
But their dog is awesome so I let it slide but it's the only thing that really disappoints me about the show.
posted by VTX at 3:17 PM on May 22, 2016
Happens frequently in Person of Interest, which is an amazing show, and available on Netflix...
I think they use that a lot because Jim Caviezel isn't a believable action hero. He isn't athletic enough and can't throw a believable punch. You'll also note that they cut pretty much any time a punch lands.
But their dog is awesome so I let it slide but it's the only thing that really disappoints me about the show.
posted by VTX at 3:17 PM on May 22, 2016
I wasn't going to say anything here, but I'm surprised to learn that I'm not the only one completely bored at many modern action sequences. I find myself drifting off and checking out the lighting and speaker placement in the theater.
posted by bongo_x at 8:03 PM on May 30, 2016
posted by bongo_x at 8:03 PM on May 30, 2016
« Older Cheese Ball Machine Gun | Bless his bagpipes Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by jdfan at 6:19 PM on May 20, 2016 [116 favorites]