Vomit Bags May Be Required
In 1999, a film called The Blair Witch Project hit theaters. It was extremely low-budget for a feature film - $22,000. The film was shot under the guise of three students videotaping a project about the Blair Witch (get it? Blair Witch Project?) Because of this, the film was shot with a hand-held camera. It was shaky. It was crude. There were shots that would tilt and zoom suddenly. Viewers began to suffer motion sickness as a result. In fact, it got so bad, that some theaters actually required their employees to hand out motion sickness bags to customers seeing the movie.
Since then, the hand-held camera, or “shaky-cam” as it is sometimes lovingly referred to, has appeared several more times in cinemas.
To some extent, I can completely understand the usage of a hand-held camera, at least from a creative standpoint. Blair Witch was trying to achieve the illusion that you are watching an amateur video shot by a bunch of kids. The recent movie Cloverfield is also along those lines – you’re supposed to be watching amateur video shot by innocent bystanders (I’ll get back to that movie in a bit). So as a creative tool, it works.
However, when the hand-held camera is used in other ways, not intended to be “gimmicks,” that’s when I shake my head. Probably two of the most high-profile examples of this are the second and third films in the Jason Bourne series, Bourne Supremacy and Bourne Ultimatum. Both of these movies use a hand-held camera exclusively – and we’re not just talking about action scenes. No, we are subjected to the hand-held camera in every scene, even the ones where characters are just standing around talking. People are standing there having a conversation and the camera jitters around like high winds are blowing. What, exactly is this supposed to accomplish? I think I recall reading or hearing somewhere that director Paul Greengrass shot the movies this way because the shaky-cam is supposed to represent Bourne’s world. Bourne has no memory of his past life, so everything’s topsy-turvy.
Using a hand-held camera in an action sequence seems like a good idea. Directors want to give you a “you are there” feeling. Unfortunately for many, it produces a “you are sick” feeling. Steven Spielberg used a hand-held camera to good effect in Saving Private Ryan, for example, during the Normandy Beach invasion. He wanted to put you in the middle of what very likely seemed like Hell. And even though he is using a hand-held camera, you still get a good sense of what is going on. Everything is in perfect view. Action sequences in films like Bourne, however, have no sense of direction. Take the car chase in Supremacy, for example. The sequence of events goes somewhat like this:
- An outside shot of the cars driving.
- A shot of Bourne, looking up at his head from what appears to be underneath the steering wheel. He looks behind him and sees…
- A shot of the enemy driver from outside the car, looking through the windshield.
- Jump cut back to Bourne from underneath the steering wheel.
- Jump cut to a close-up shot of Bourne changing gears.
- Jump cut to outside Bourne’s car.
- Jump cut to outside the enemy driver’s car.
- Jump cut to underneath Bourne again.
- Jump cut to a side shot of Bourne steering.
And so on and so forth. I’ve watched the sequence a few times now, and I have an incredibly hard time finding out who exactly I am watching doing what. I caught the film one time in HD on TNT and felt queasy. Then of course there is a fistfight earlier in the movie, where both characters are wearing the exact same color, so when the camera is tumbling around like its caught in a dryer, its extremely difficult to know who exactly is winning the fight. Mission: Impossible III was shot in very much the same way. A helicopter sequence made me very much want some Dramamine. I just don’t get why someone would want to shoot a movie this way. Does seeing a perfectly-framed shot of two people fighting put me “right in the action?” No, it doesn’t. But at least I know who is winning the fight.
This brings me to Cloverfield, the most recent high-profile film to use the shaky-cam. I’ve seen photos of the warning signs theaters have now had to put up because of this movie. Basically these signs go something to the effect of “hey, this movie is essentially a roller-coaster simulator. If you vomit on roller coasters, it may not be a good idea for you to watch this movie.” I went into the movie knowing that the camera work may be like this, so I sat well towards the back. Had I been sitting towards the front – heck, if I had a snack of any kind sitting anywhere in the theater – I may very well have felt queasy. The camera work did take me “out of the moment” on several occasions. The “cameraman” had an uncanny ability to put EVERYTHING in-frame. “Oh look, monsters are attacking my friend; let me get it in perfect focus!” “Oh look, the giant monster is striding over my head; let me zoom in on the monster rather than GET OUT OF THE WAY.” But as I’ve stated, the camera work didn’t bother me too much, because it actually made sense.
So, I remind you, shaky-cam directors, that items like the steady-cam, the tripod, and dollies are used in filmmaking for a reason. Viewers want to know what is going on. But if you insist on using a hand-held camera, do people a favor and clearly advertise the fact. I’m sure movie theater employees are tired of mopping their floors.
