What's new

Can w please lose the jittery camerawork...? (1 Viewer)

Simon Howson

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
1,780
Well, one issue is that Hollywood filmmakers seem to adopt the same intensified style irrespective of genre or story they are telling. Action films, romantic comedies, biographical or horror films all feature some combination of fast cutting, camera movement, uses of extreme lens lengths, and frequent close-ups. That group style is now the base line for what is considered "good filmmaking". Of course there are impressive versions of it by Spike Lee, Scorsese, Michael Mann, Ridley Scott, et al, as well as completely over the top versions by Michael Bay, Greengrass, and Tony Scott and others. But they are really modifications on a very dominant theme, rather than completely opposing styles the way Hitchcock and Aldrich opposed Preminger or Minnelli.

Things have changed in significant ways, and what has been lost is the diversity and breadth that can be seen in the studio era. Sure back then there were bigger cameras, slower film stocks, noisier lights, but somewhat paradoxically, there was a greater range of styles exhibited 50 years ago in Hollywood than there are today. I'm yet to read or hear anyone convincingly argue otherwise.
 

Michael Reuben

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 12, 1998
Messages
21,763
Real Name
Michael Reuben
I was referring to the original topic of this thread, from which we've wandered pretty far, and to which I have nothing more to add.

M.
 

Bruce Morrison

Supporting Actor
Joined
May 16, 2001
Messages
545
In all this discussion about jittery hand-held camerawork and hyper-fast editing, I'm reminded of a telling quote that I've always remembered. (I think it might have been by Howard Hawks but I'm open to be corrected on this.) When asked for a definition of a great director, the reply was "Someone who doesn't annoy you."

I think that's truer than ever these days. It would be interesting to have views on who are the "non-annoying" directors working today.
 

Simon Howson

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
1,780
I think it is funny that Andrew Sarris and Pauline Kael were some of the first critics to attack directors like Sidney Lumet and Sidney J. Furie for cutting and moving the camera a lot. But you look at their 1960s films and they are a lot more nicely shot and cut than many films released today. This includes obviously flamboyant films like The Ipcress File. Those directors are indicative of the start of the intensified continuity trend, but they look very restrained compared with a lot of contemporary films.
 

Simon Howson

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
1,780
Surely film schools have something to do with contemporary film trends. It is a lot easier to teach students about the shower scene from Psycho, rather than explain how to stage a scene in medium shots and long takes. In fact, I've never heard of a film school that teaches staging in any serious way.
 

Robert Crawford

Crawdaddy
Moderator
Patron
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
67,597
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
You're the one in film school so explain it to this old fart that views film probably a little differently than you on how film school influences contemporary film trends?





Crawdaddy
 

Shad R

Supporting Actor
Joined
Oct 8, 2001
Messages
536
First:
It doesn't bother me at all. I did add a sense of urgency to the Bourne movies, and I liked it. However...
I love Arrested Development, but the camera shakes too much in my opinion. My roommate won't even watch it anymore because he says it's just too much. He asked me if they hired someone with turrets to do the camera work. I told him it was the same guy who used to shoot little league games on the 8mm.
 

Simon Howson

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
1,780
I don't study at a film school, I study film at a Media department at a university which is quite a different thing in Australia. In Australia "film school" specifically means a place people go simply to learn how to make films. There is only one major film school in Australia.

I have taught classes on early cinema, the history of film style and technology (especially sound, colour and widescreen), but I have never taught a class how to make make a film.

But since you ask. My guess is after teaching students how to turn on the camera :-P There would be given examples from a (ultimately arbitrary) cannon of filmmakers who are considered good exponents of certain aspects of filmmaking. Maybe they dip into old films, but I don't know. Surely the Soviet Montage directors would get a mention, because montage editing is a very popular way to make contemporary films (the irony!). But I think the 1970s Hollywood would be important, Scorsese, Coppolla, Friedkin, Altman, Speilberg, Lucas would all be important. As well as the French New Wave filmmakers, Godard, Chabrol, Truffaut. Obviously different filmmakers would resonate with different students, some would be into Art-Cinema, whereas others would be intending to make commercials, music videos then features.

If contemporary films are any guide, I'm pretty certain that more time gets spent talking about editing and camera movement than staging. That's probably the only thing I'm certain on! E.g. they would probably use The French Connection as an example rather than The Best Years of Our Lives or The Little Foxes.

The basic principles of filmmaking are pretty easy to learn. Students seem to figure out what continuity editing is in a lesson or two based simply on their understanding from viewing films. It is up to students themselves to figure out how to make good films, and that probably comes more from them watching a lot of films and life experiences, rather than being told hard and fast rules (which are all made to be broken anyway). The best filmmakers seem to be people that watch a heap of films, some of them if only to figure out how not to make a film! :-P
 

Stephen_J_H

All Things Film Junkie
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
7,871
Location
North of the 49th
Real Name
Stephen J. Hill
I think something that has much more to do with how films are shot and edited these days is the change in technology. Most films are shot with video playback on location/set and edited on computers. It seems that the only time they are viewed on any larger screen is during scoring/sound effects/foley/ADR. With the advent of home theatre, screen sizes are smaller as well, and it could be argued that directors and cinematographers have been composing for the "small screen" for quite some time.

Before anyone starts talking about their 106" projection screen or specific directors, remember that HT enthusiasts are the exception rather than the rule, and that iconoclastic directors like P.T. Anderson and Wes Anderson are as well.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,808
Messages
5,123,518
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top